Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF EDINBURGH DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to City of Edinburgh District Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 3 December and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Strathclyde Regional Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 3 December and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Investment

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to combat short-termism among investors in British industry.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): The most effective way of avoiding short-termism is to defeat inflation, a task which this Government are well on the way to achieving.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister recall that, after collapsing by 30 per cent. at the start of the last decade, manufacturing investment took the rest of the decade to return to its starting point? Now it has collapsed by 20 per cent. again. Will he explain to industralists why they should risk their long-term capital on economic forecasts from Ministers who cannot get them right even three months ahead?

Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government and has risen under this Government. Figures in the CBI report show that manufacturing output in the past decade, at precisely the same point in the

economic cycle, is up by a quarter, investment is up by a third, productivity is up by a half and manufactured exports are up by nearly three quarters.

Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to short-termism can often be found in the contracts which senior executives and directors write for themselves, concentrating on achieving short-term profit objectives to sustain a share price? Does he agree that there is an important role in publicly quoted company board rooms for non-executive directors to ensure that companies' long-term interests are reflected in management agreements with senior executives?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Shareholders should certainly take that factor into account when considering the performance of managers. In the long run, most shareholders, which are institutions investing on our behalf, must take a long-term view because they invest for our pensions and life assurance policies over the long term. Their interest, therefore, relies on long-term investments for long-term success, just as industry does.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm that in the Prime Minister's first year, far from escaping from short-termism, 45,000 businesses have gone under, 70,000 homes have been repossessed, 700,000 more people have lost their jobs and manufacturing investment has fallen by £2 billion this year and, according to the CBI, will fall by another £400 million even in 1992? Is not the ultimate in short-termism the Government's failure to listen to the widespread demand from industry for a long-term industrial policy for Britain? As the Prime Minister has done nothing to change that policy in his first year, is not Majorism simply Thatcherism without the courage of her convictions?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman illustrates perfectly the short-termism of the Labour Front Bench. His question was based on a 12-month view.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Why should businesses want the Government to dictate industrial policy? Why should short-termism be a feature of investment which the Government can influence? Surely it is up to boards of directors, executives and investment managers to decide whether they wish to invest in the short or long term. Is not the Government's only contribution to provide a stable economy with low inflation?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the responsibility and duty of investors and businesses to take a long-term view and they increasingly do so. It is the Government's job to provide a stable framework and reduce inflation. The Labour party's policies would re-ignite inflation and exacerbate short-term pressures.

Mr. Salmond: Would the Secretary of State consider short-termism among investors as a suitable excuse for the rocky position of sterling on the foreign exchange markets? Does he accept that the position of sterling is a verdict on industrial performance and, if so, is the verdict guilty or not guilty?

Mr. Lilley: That is another example of someone criticising short-termism by taking the shortest possible


short-term view. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that when he has created an independent Scottish state it will have a separate currency, or would he go for the ecu?

Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend take no lectures from the Labour party on short-termism, as its short-term policies will last only as long as the election and change for every by-election—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this about export credit guarantees?

Mr. Thompson: —especially in this field?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great problems that industry would face under a Labour Government would be knowing how long their policies would last before being reversed, not least on Europe. The Labour party seems to reverse its policies on that issue twice every decade.

Export Credit Guarantees

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about export credit guarantees to eastern Europe and the USSR.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Export Credits Guarantee Department short-term export credit cover is available, subject to certain conditions, for the USSR and all the countries in eastern Europe. The availability of medium-term cover varies from country to country.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister will be aware of Oldham Batteries in my constituency, which has an excellent reputation for making mining batteries. He will also be aware that the British market for such products is steadily declining and there is considerable scope for the company to sell batteries to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Is he aware that that firm and many other people feel that the Governments of other countries in Europe give more assistance to manufacturers to sell to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union than do the British Government? Will the Minister give an assurance that the jobs of my constituents will be helped by the Government's provision of credit?

Mr. Sainsbury: The Export Credits Guarantee Department has assisted an enormous volume of exports and will continue to do so. I am sure that the factory in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would like to be paid for its exports. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware that the economy of the Soviet Union is in a confused state and that some of the other countries have heavy debt burdens. Those matters will have to be taken into account when we consider whether to allow credit for exports to those countries.

Mr. Knapman: After the long bout of socialism there is bound to be economic instability in Russia and perhaps the way forward would be for those who do not trust the rouble to use barter deals. Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the application of a company in my constituency which requires a small amount of insurance cover that could lead to tens of millions of pounds' worth of business?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the prosperity of companies in his constituency and has

written to me about that case. I am happy to say that my officials will be meeting representatives from the company tomorrow to see what ECGD can do to help in the present confused economic position in the Soviet Union.

Ms. Quin: Will the Minister confirm that we have stopped medium-term cover for the Soviet Union longer than any other OECD country? Does the Department of Trade and Industry accept that, while there may be no short-term commercial interest in giving export credit cover, there is a case for doing so in the national and long-term commercial interest? Such a case should be made out. What is the Treasury's attitude to providing cover? Is it simply intent on killing off ECGD altogether?

Mr. Sainsbury: All the major export credit agencies are reviewing cover for the Soviet Union.

Exports

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of the United Kingdom's exports in 1990–91 to (a) the United States of America and (b) Japan.

Mr. Sainsbury: In the year to September 1991, the value of United Kingdom visible exports to the United States of America was almost double the level of a decade earlier, while exports to Japan had nearly quadrupled.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend gives impressive figures which underline the importance of a successful outcome to the GATT talks. Will he give the House more information on the Priority Japan campaign which is being run with British industry? I understand that it has already achieved positive results and it shows just what British industry can do.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the importance of a successful outcome to the Uruguay round of GATT. As a result of the Priority Japan campaign, which my Department launched with British industry, British exports to Japan have risen by no less than 80 per cent. since 1988.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that we should all congratulate those British companies that have contributed to the success in export achievements? Does he further agree that the levels achieved have been assisted by investment in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, by American and Japanese companies? Will he continue to encourage further investment, which will lead automatically to further increases in exports?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of inward investment in contributing to export success. For example, our exports of television sets substantially exceed imports. Investment in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, is important. That is why I am so concerned about the hostile attitude to inward investment taken by the Trades Union Congress and the failure of the Opposition to repudiate the TUC view.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that exports have increased by 70 per cent. over the past 10 years and that this country now exports more per head


than even the Japanese? Over the past three months Bristol Babcock in my constituency has received export orders of £10 million.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. The success of our manufactured exports gives the lie to the Opposition's portrayal of manufacturing. British exporters have been extremely successful and that is because the Government have provided them with the right framework for success.

Airlines (Purchasing Decisions)

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet representatives of British airlines to discuss the consequences for the British aircraft engineering industry of their recent decisions on purchasing aircraft and engines.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): No, Sir.

Mr. Flannery: Has not the Minister discussed with the chairman of British Airways the very large order for American planes with American engines? Does not he understand the impact that that will have on British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce? It would have been possible for British Aerospace to manufacture the wings and for Rolls-Royce to manufacture the engines. British manufacturing is taking a blow and all that the Minister can do is to give a monosyllabic, negative answer without any explanation.

Mr. Leigh: Naturally, I understand Rolls-Royce's disappointment, but we must put the matter in perspective. Rolls-Royce's order book stands at a record £7 billion. Some two thirds of the turnover of the British aerospace industry is exported. It would be against our interests to adopt a more protectionist and interventionist policy in aerospace, because it could lead to other countries adopting the same approach. That would be against the interests of our industry.

Mr. Hayward: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is disappointment on both sides of the Chamber at the recent decision by British Airways? Although we recognise that it was a business decision, there are substantial implications, particularly for Rolls-Royce. I reiterate what the Minister said: the aerospace industry in general is exporting more than ever before in the face of substantial competition from abroad.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. Rolls-Royce is having success with its excellent new Trent engines and has succeeded in getting an order for the Airbus A330. We wish the company every success for the future. My hon. Friend is right to pinpoint the fact that it would be against the interests of British Airways and Rolls-Royce for politicians to second-guess the commercial decision making of private companies.

Mr. Hoyle: Does not the Minister realise that nobody is asking the Government to second-guess? He is merely being asked why he did not discuss the matter with Lord King. Further, does he realise that Rolls-Royce now has very little chance of being specified as the lead engine on the 777? The fact that the alternative was a stretch version of the A330 would have meant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said,

that both the wings and the aero engines would have been manufactured in Britain. That would have been good for Britain, for employment, for British Airways, for British Aerospace and for Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Leigh: There was a time when Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry not only discussed these matters with the industries but directed them. I remind the Opposition that in those days, when British Airways was still in state ownership, it made a loss of £140 million before tax. By contrast, in 1990 the airline posted a profit of £130 million. The question is really an attack on the privatisation of British Airways, which is a successful company operating in a highly competitive marketplace. Nothing would be more disastrous for the future of British Airways than for it to be summoned to my right hon. Friend's office and told how to run its affairs. We used to do things that way and British Airways made a thumping loss as a result.

Inflation

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from business men about the importance of controlling inflation.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Many business men have stressed the importance of controlling inflation. I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that it is down to 3·7 per cent. and below the EC average, as that provides the sort of background against which businesses can expand and export abroad.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at 3·7 per cent., the rate of inflation is half the lowest level that it was under the last Labour Government? Does he accept that small business organisations are extraordinarily worried by the interview given by the Leader of the Opposition to the Evening Standard? When tackled on how the Labour party would deal with inflation, the right hon. Gentleman said, "To cut a story short, we do not know."

Mr. Redwood: That was a rare moment of honesty and brevity from the Leader of the Opposition. We all welcome his precision in noting the fact that the Opposition do not have a proper policy. How right my hon. Friend is to point out that our rate of inflation is less than half the best rate ever achieved by the 1974–79 Labour and Labour-Liberal Administration. We do not intend to repeat their experience and we have the policies to make sure that we do not.

Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding the importance of trying to reduce inflation, does the Minister agree that increasing unemployment—8,000 more jobless people in the city of Liverpool alone since January this year—and the effect on the telecommunications industry of the recent GEC announcements mean that he should look especially at ECGD funding? I commend to him early-day motion 209, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), which calls on the Government to take a more realistic view of the help that they can give to telecommunications if those important jobs are to be safeguarded.

Mr. Redwood: That information is vital to the creation of new jobs. A former Labour Prime Minister got that far in his thinking in the 1970s when he pointed out that one could not have high inflation and lots of employment and that high inflation would reduce rather than increase the number of jobs.
The best way to create jobs in the telecommunications industry is through liberalisation, our duopoly review, opening up the market, allowing the new products to come through and allowing customers to make their decisions in the marketplace. I promise the hon. Gentleman that jobs will follow from those decisions.

Trade and Tariff Barriers

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in lowering trade and tariff barriers; and what progress is being made in the GATT negotiations.

Mr. Lilley: We believe that a successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round before the end of the year is vital for Britain, essential for the world economy and still within our grasp.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interesting reply. Could not the European Community learn something from north America, where a tariff-free trade area, consisting of Canada and the United States and soon to be joined by Mexico, has been created? That has been achieved without the need for massive bureaucracy or supranational government or any loss of sovereignty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that free markets need only a system of laws and not all that bureaucracy?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a telling case. It is indeed a fact that the greatest prize in Europe is the completion of the single market. The Government are single-minded about the single market. It is a British idea, introduced by a British Commissioner and it will be brought to a conclusion under a British presidency. We believe that that is of supreme importance to Europe and we want to extend the benefits wider through agreements with the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. James Lamond: Although both the successful conclusion of the GATT negotiations and the temporary extension of the multi-fibre arrangement are welcome, can the Secretary of State assure us that there will be some mechanism to control the expansion of imports of textiles and footwear into this country after the M FA finishes? Will he bear in mind the fact that many eastern European countries are looking to this country as a possible dumping ground and they produce their goods with wages of about 20p an hour?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, will know that an outline agreement affecting textiles is on the table which, I hope, given the completion of the whole GATT round, will come into force. That will mean that the gradual integration of textiles into the usual GATT arrangements over 10 years will be accompanied and, in most cases, preceded by a strengthening of the rules and discipline of GATT which, among other things, apply to surges of imports, dumping and so on. I hope that that is a reassurance. It has been taken as a reassurance by the British textile industry.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence to ensure that the problems outstanding on the GATT negotiations are discussed at the Maastricht summit? Many people rightly think that they are far more important than many of the items currently on the agenda which are causing problems. Let us get down to tackling practical matters such as getting those trade negotiations tied up. I hope that my right hon. Friend uses his influence.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the great importance that we attach to a successful GATT round. There is nothing more important for the world economy. At the G7 Heads of Government meeting, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained the personal commitment of the round before the end of the year and it was partly as a result of that that the valuable meeting took place between President Bush and Mr. Lubbers, on behalf of the Community, which I hope has moved matters towards a conclusion. Whether there will be enough time at the Maastricht summit to discuss those matters as well remains to be seen.

Mr. Ron Brown: If the Secretary of State believes that he can get rid of tariffs, why does he support the Common Market, now known as the European Community—that big business club which is essentially a conspiracy against the working class and is certainly not wholeheartedly supported on this side of the House? Will he explain his philosophy? If he really accepts that, somehow or other, the Common Market is a panacea and if the British people have no say about whether we should continue our membership of that club, which does not have the interests of the common people at heart, how can it be justified?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman goes on about conspiracies against the working class, but I gather that in his constituency the working class conspired against him.
We have abolished tariffs within the single market and the level of tariffs outside the Community is on average, 4 or 5 per cent.—much lower than it used to be. We are determined to resist calls for a fortress Europe, which would be damaging to world trade. One reason why we are determined not to have a Labour Government is that they might tip the balance in the Community towards a fortress Europe and against the forces of free trade which we have successfully orchestrated so far.

Industry (Support)

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry to discuss Government support for industry.

Mr. Lilley: I regularly meet representatives of the CBI to discuss all matters affecting industry. This month I was the first Secretary of State for Trade and industry to be invited to address its conference since it began 15 years ago.

Mr. MacKay: When my right hon. Friend last met the CBI, did he have an opportunity to discuss its recent report on manufacturing industry in which it said that the Government should have no role in backing winners, which is precisely the Opposition's policy?

Mr. Lilley: I discussed it with the CBI and congratulated the CBI on it. It was an excellent report. It endorsed British industry's achievements under the policies that we have been pursuing for the past 12 years, urged us to continue and build upon them in future and condemned utterly the sort of policies still advocated by the Labour party, which is stuck in a mind-set of the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The CBI, in its cogently argued annual report, argues for a more involved, better-funded Department of Trade and Industry doing more to help British industry. The Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, argues for a less well-funded, less involved Department of Trade and Industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the CBI is wrong and he is right?

Mr. Lilley: I can tell the House why the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. First, it was not an annual report but a one-off; secondly, it did not call for more funding——

Mr. Carlile: It did.

Mr. Lilley: It did not. Thirdly, it specifically ruled out more funding and subsidies and a return to the policies pursued by the last Labour Government, with the support of the Liberal party. The CBI rejected all that. It said that it did not want the Government to channel funds in the direction of strategically selected industries.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend recall the CBI's estimate that a 1 per cent. rise in inflation costs industry some £5 billion? Does not that show that the Government could best serve the CBI by running the economy in such a way that inflation is kept down and does not reach the levels that it reached under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Lilley: That is absolutely right. That is why the CBI has warned against policies—advocated by Labour—that would re-ignite inflation. Premature cuts in interest rates, £35 billion of extra public spending, and increased public borrowing and taxation would all set fire to inflation. To put Labour in charge would be like trying to douse a fire with kerosene.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If the Government's record is so good, why has the CBI just reported that investment in manufacturing has fallen by 18·8 per cent. in the past year, and that it will fall by 4·4 per cent. next year? Is not the estimate of a fall of 22·2 per cent. in two years a damning verdict on the Government?

Mr. Lilley: On the contrary, the CBI takes a long-term view—unlike Opposition Members, who rarely take a view longer than 12 months—and it commends the fact that manufacturing investment is now a third up on the level of 10 years ago. It says that recent years have seen a transformation in Britain's manufacturing base, and it condemns those who do not recognise it and continue to run down the achievements of British industry. That, I think, is a pretty clear coded reference to Opposition Members.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Department of Trade and Industry has an important role to play in creating the right climate for manufacturing industry? I know that a question has already been asked about export credit guarantees, but

does not my right hon. Friend feel that the Government could be more pragmatic, constructive and helpful in assisting manufacturing industry to gain the many orders for capital equipment in the Soviet Union and eastern European countries that cannot proceed because of the Department's failure to grant export credit cover?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to the Government's role in setting the right climate and environment and providing the right services for industry.
My hon. Friend asked about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. We have paid out eight times as much in funds to industry as we have taken in premiums since 1984. Over that period there has been only a 10 per cent. increase in the average premium—some premiums have risen while others have fallen. Naturally, companies trading in the more risky markets, for which premiums have been increased somewhat to reflect the risks, are less than enthusiastic. Overall, however, I think that the comparatively small increase in premiums demonstrates a pragmatic response, given the huge losses incurred over past years.

Motor Industry

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet representatives of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to discuss the effects of the recession on the motor industry.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 11 November to discuss various motor industry issues. While no further meeting is planned for the immediate future, the Department maintains regular contact with the SMMT at all levels.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that car sales have fallen every month for the past two years and that, as a consequence, domestic production fell by 27 per cent. last month alone? Will he offer any hope for the future of the industry and its employees when he next meets the SMMT?

Mr. Leigh: What the hon. Gentleman fails to mention is that the industry has shown enormous flexibility in increasing exports by a massive 78 per cent. in the first nine months of this year. Contrary to what he said, that has enabled the industry to maintain production at much the same levels as those of 1990.

Mr. Roger King: My hon. Friend has just referred to the car industry's exports during the past few years, and especially this year, which reflect the quality of the product and the improvements in manufacturing technology. Does he agree that to stimulate demand within the United Kingdom home market, where problems exist on the retail side, the industry is entitled to expect some special attention from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the next Budget, which could include a reduction in or the total elimination of the appalling 10 per cent. special car tax?

Mr. Leigh: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note with great interest my hon. Friend's comments. If he does not do so, I shall draw them to his attention.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the very serious position that faces the Jaguar car company in my constituency? Is he aware that the effect of the special car tax and of the vicious recession in the United Kingdom and the USA has led to the sacking of more than one third of Jaguar car workers this year? Does he realise that we need to deal urgently with the special car tax and to review the punitive arrangements affecting company cars that have so badly hit the Jaguar car company in my constituency?

Mr. Leigh: The luxury car companies are restructuring, especially Rolls-Royce and Jaguar. We wish them success in the future. The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on what he said about taxation. I shall ensure, however, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made aware of his comments.

Mr. Butcher: May I press my hon. Friend a little further on the question of the special car tax, given the Government's excellent record in getting rid of idiosyncratic taxes, of which this is one? Will my hon. Friend confirm that were he to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is no constitutional impediment to the Chancellor abolishing taxes before Budget day?

Mr. Leigh: I shall draw those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Henderson: On a recent visit to Preston, the managing director of Leyland DAF told me that sales of trucks and buses—which I am sure the Minister agrees form an important part of the industry—in 1991 are at their lowest level since the 1930s. Does the hon. Gentleman have the grace to accept that that is clear evidence of the damage that has been done to our economy by a Government who have no industrial policy? Can he declare that the Government intend to produce an industrial policy? Furthermore, what support can he give to the motor industry?

Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the House would be interested to know what the Labour party's industrial policy is for the motor industry. British Leyland absorbed a massive £.2·9 billion in state subsidies while it was nationalised. What is the Labour party's policy? All we have, in the Opposition's current phrase of the month, is a kneejerk reaction. They have no policy for the future of the motor industry. We have created a flexible motor industry that increased its exports by 78 per cent. in the first nine months of this year. We have every reason to suppose that as soon as there is a reverse in the current downturn in demand, we shall be able to move to even greater success in the home market.

Inward Investment

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from business men about the need for the United Kingdom to remain a receptive and attractive base for inward investment.

Mr. Redwood: The CBI has recently pointed out how important inward investment is to this country, and pointed to the success of this Government in attracting it—a success not assisted by some in the Labour movement,

who call it "alien". I hope that Opposition Members will dissociate themselves from that comment, because Japanese and American investment is more than welcome here.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that a co-ordinated tax policy across the Community—now advocated by the Opposition—would severely damage inward investment, much of which is attracted here by our lower corporation tax and income tax rates? The Labour party advocates that in addition to its well-known policies of intervention, control and regulation.

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend. The tax on businesses is much lighter here than in France, and it is also lower than in Germany. That is a powerful argument for companies that are thinking of locating within the Community to come to Britain. Were we ever to have the misfortune of a Labour Government, which is unlikely in the immediate future, the British public might welcome common taxation systems. Average taxation rates would then be lower than Labour rates, but higher than Conservative rates. We intend to keep a Conservative Government for that and other reasons.

Mr. Ted Garrett: The Minister made great play of being single-minded. Does he accept that that single-minded attitude about which he is boasting is the curse of British manufacturing industry? How can one expect inward investment when no assistance is given to our existing industries? I am referring to the machine tool industry, which is a key industry now suffering and struggling to keep seventh place in the world. There were further redundancies last week. I warn Ministers that if the machine tool industry goes under, it will act as a deterrent to inward investment because it will show that the Government are not committed to the principle of assistance.

Mr. Redwood: The Government have a clear industrial policy which has been set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Low taxation is vital to that policy, as is the assistance given in some assisted areas by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for regional selective assistance. Also vital is the support that we give to exports and trade abroad when British companies are involved. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework on those points. We have a single-minded policy for British industrial success, but the Opposition have a feebleminded policy which would achieve nothing for British industry.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency is extremely attractive geographically for countries making inward investment in Britain and that it has prospered from such inward investment? Does my hon. Friend agree that more than ever it is important that an agreement is reached at Maastricht in which Britain takes a whole-hearted role in the European Community, because otherwise it will cease to be so attractive for inward investment?

Mr. Redwood: We all hope that there will be a good agreement at Maastricht. We want an agreement that promotes business and does not impose burdens or barriers upon the business community. That is what the Government are fighting for, among other things, in those important discussions. The success of our policy is evident


in Crawley, which is well served by my hon. Friend. It is also evident in the overall figures, which show that we have attracted almost 40 per cent. of the total American and Japanese investment into the European Community. Those are astonishingly good figures which show the attraction of Britain as a location for investment.

Regional Policy

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet representatives of the European Commission to discuss regional policy.

Mr. Leigh: I met other European Ministers responsible for regional policy and Mr. Bruce Milian, the responsible member of the Commission, at The Hague on 18 and 19 November.

Mr. Patchett: Will the Minister act immediately to unblock the RECHAR money for Britain's coalfield areas such as South Yorkshire? Does he realise that France and Germany are already benefiting from the scheme, but that we are denied it because of the Government's obstinacy?

Mr. Leigh: The person who needs to unblock the money is not a member of the Government but Commissioner Milian. He is blocking the money. I remind the House that we pay £1,800 million into structural funds and receive only £900 million back. We make clear provision for RECHAR in public spending. We want our money and we want it now. We want to stop Opposition Members conniving with the Commission to withhold our money.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Contrary to what the Labour party is saying, I have a letter from Commissioner Millan dated 8 November that makes his position clear. He said that it is not about additionality, but about the way that the Government are targeting the money. Is not it time that he stopped playing party politics and gave us our money for our constituents?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. He speaks as a Conservative representing a coal mining area and he truly speaks up for the industry. France, Spain and Italy have much the same system of additionality as we have. Why is not Commissioner Milian withholding their money? Why is he withholding our money when, although the structural funds are doubling, we are likely to receive less? The legal position is clear. He should stop shilly-shallying around and mucking about and ensure that that £100 million of our money is released to our coal mining areas.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm—yes or no—that it is not only the local authorities that are demanding that the money be unblocked, but the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman knows that the constitutional position is clear. Ministers cannot disagree with each other and, therefore, they never do so.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What on earth will the Government do about the irresponsible and scandalous actions of Commissioner Millan who is withholding money, to which we are legally entitled, on the basis of a bogus bureaucratic point? Is not it time that the Government, who pay in a massive amount of money—equivalent to a net

contribution of £3 a week per family—simply deducted £109 million from the vast amount that they send to Brussels every month?

Mr. Leigh: I cannot promise to do that immediately. I agree that it is an absurd position for Commissioner Millan to take. Why have not the Opposition considered the serious point that I have made—that structural funds are doubling, yet we shall receive less? Our rules on additionality have not changed. Opposition Members are cutting off their noses to spite their own faces by encouraging Mr. Milian to withhold our money. We want it, and we want it now. The legal position is clear, so can we please stop this nonsense? I tell Opposition Members that we shall not give way; we shall retain control over public spending. We will not tolerate a situation in which the Government are treated like a county council and a county council treated like the Government.

Guyana

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with the Government of Guyana concerning trade since 1986.

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), when Minister for Trade, met President Hoyte and Mr. Winston Murray, the then Guyanese Minister for Trade and Tourism, in 1987. He met Mr. Murray again in 1988.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I have given the Department of Trade and Industry notice? Is it true that a former DTI Minister, who happens to be the current treasurer of the Conservative party—the noble Lord Beaverbrook—in five months made a profit of £50 million by purchasing and then selling a huge tract of the fragile Guyana rain forest? How will that square at the environment conference at Rio de Janeiro as an example of what the British do to try to save the rain forest?

Mr. Sainsbury: The financial details of the transaction to which the hon. Member referred, and which bear no resemblance to those that he described, took place two years after my noble Friend left the Government. We all know of the hon. Gentleman's concern for environmental protection and for tropical and rain forests, but the article in The Guardian—I stress, The Guardian—drew attention to the fact that the proposal was to take only 20 cu m of wood per hectare, which is only eight trees, every 20 years. That was the first time that there had been a programme for sustainable forestry management in Guyana.

Mr. Dickens: When my hon. Friend next meets Ministers from Guyana and other countries, will he explain that they should buy British goods because they are best? He could remind them that since 1981, the volume of manufactured exports from the United Kingdom has outstripped that of France, Germany, Japan and the United States of America. That is why we are a great nation and why my hon. Friend should attack the Opposition, who constantly talk it down. We are not a small nation, but a great nation.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the true and forceful points that my hon. Friend made were heard by Opposition Members and that they will take note of the success of


British industry. I assure my hon. Friend that when I meet Guyanese Ministers—or, indeed, Ministers from any country—I take every opportunity to promote British exports.

Mrs. Fyfe: Surely the Minister feels some embarrassment about the fact that a former Minister at his Department bought a Guyanese asset for £9·7 million and sold it a few months later for £62 million worth of shares? How are Guyanese people expected to buy goods from Britain or anywhere else when they are so impoverished? How will they repay their debt when the poorest of the poor are cheated in such a way? Is not it frustrating for aid agencies across the globe to have their efforts swept aside by deals such as this, which cheat the people of Guyana?

Mr. Sainsbury: I have already pointed out that the financial details of the transaction were, as I understand them, nothing like those suggested by the hon. Lady or her hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The forest involved in the transaction had been losing substantial sums of money under Guyanese Government management. As a result of the transaction not only will there be substantial investment and sustainable forestry, but 450 jobs that would otherwise have been lost will be preserved.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Japanese Investment

Mr. William Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from business men about the impact of the Trades Union Congress's attitude to Japanese inward investment into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lilley: I recently met the Japanese Keidanren when they visited this country, and I reassured them that the Government continue to welcome and support Japanese investment in this country.

Mr. Powell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of Japanese investment in this country runs into billions of pounds and that it underpins tens of thousands of jobs directly and a great many more indirectly? Is not my right hon. Friend absolutely astonished at the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to condemn the absurd criticisms made of that investment by the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Japanese investment in this country has been enormously valuable to us and it is vital that it should continue. The resolution of the Trades Union Congress, which was passed by an overwhelming majority, was damaging to that prospect. However, most scandalous of all is the failure of the Opposition's spokesmen on industry and on employment, when given the opportunity, to dissociate themselves from it. Even now they talk among themselves to hide their embarrassment. I should happily give way—if it were in my power to do so—to give them the opportunity to dissociate themselves from that appalling motion.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that although he gave an account of meetings with the

Japanese, the question asked specifically what representations he had received from business men? Will he reply to the question?

Mr. Lilley: When I was in the north-east, there was particular concern among business men whom I met because the north-east in particular has benefited greatly from Japanese investment and it does not want investors to be frightened off. Many British companies, including the one that I visited yesterday, sell very satisfactorily to Japanese companies in this country and that provides a vast market for supplier companies. They are concerned, which makes it all the more alarming that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen continue to sit on their backsides and endorse the TUC's policy.

EC Directives

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many directives under the single market programme have been implemented by the United Kingdom; and what percentage have been implemented by the other EC members.

Mr. Redwood: As a result of the United Kingdom initiative, the Internal Market Council of the European Community now receives regular updates on the implementation of single market measures. The last meeting was given the figures up to 15 October 1991. The United Kingdom had implemented 111 of the 137 measures required—81 per cent.—and we have implemented more since then. That confirms that the United Kingdom is at the forefront in implementing single market measures. Comparable percentage figures for other member states show that Denmark has implemented 91 per cent., France 86 per cent., Portugal 79 per cent., Spain, Greece and Germany 77 per cent. each, the Netherlands and Belgium 72 per cent., Luxembourg 69 per cent., Ireland 64 per cent. and, I am afraid to say, Italy 54 per cent.

Mr. Bowis: Do not those excellent figures show that this party and this country are sincere and wholehearted in their activities within the European Community? Do not they also draw attention to the willingness of some countries and some parties to sign up to measures that they have no intention of implementing? For that reason, is not one of the most important elements of the draft treaty now under discussion the proposal to tighten penalties for nations within the Community that fail to meet their obligations?

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government believe in serious negotiation to get the details right before signing the directives. Sometimes that is difficult because we will implement them and we want them to be fairly applied across the Community. The Commission is with us on that and it was especially firm with Italy at the most recent informal Internal Market Council about its poor state of implementation. The Italian Minister was unable to promise more than having implemented one out of two by the end of the year. Many of the other member states agreed with the Commission that more should be done to ensure that that implementation goes ahead.
Our business men expect nothing less. They expect good law that makes sense for business and they expect it to be applied uniformly across the Community, both by


implementation and by proper enforcement. My hon. Friend may like to know that the Government are now studying the Frankovich judgment, which may also have some bearing on speed of implementation in the Community.

Mr. Enright: Is not the social charter regarded on the continent by both right and left as an essential complement to a single trading area? British Ministers are looked on as grubby messengers with grubby messages.

Mr. Redwood: That is quite untrue. Many people on the continent agree with us that business must not be overburdened and that it should be allowed to make choices about how best to involve employees in the process of the business. We want our system, just as surely as France and Germany want to be free to enjoy their systems. They have evolved over time; one is not right and one is not wrong. They are good for our countries.

Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the figures and the fact that French farmers regularly burn lorry loads of English lamb and Italian grapes with complete impunity and that it is not possible for an English lorry firm to go to Germany and to load up with goods to bring back to the United Kingdom, should not the European Community try to walk before it tries to run?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has spoken for me. We want to see full progress with the single market as the priority programme for the European Community. As the man who has to do most of the negotiating on single market measures, I know that there is still a long way to go. I pledge to the House that there will be no lack of effort by the Government to make a success of that programme.

Regional Policy

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet representatives of the European Commission to discuss regional policy and the implications for the manufacturing sector of industry.

Mr. Leigh: I met other European Ministers responsible for regional policy and Mr. Bruce Milian, the responsible member of the Commission, at The Hague on 18 and 19 November. Several of the issues discussed have implications for the manufacturing sector.

Mr. Pike: Is the Minister alarmed that reports by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that United Kingdom investment per person in the manufacturing sector is the lowest, apart from that of Greece, in the European Community? Is he concerned about that? Does he understand that our manufacturing regions, such as the north-west, believe that the Government are not interested in the regions or in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Leigh: That is absolute nonsense. If it were true, why am I, as responsible Minister, spending £567 million of taxpayers' money over the current public expenditure survey round on regional policy?

Burdens on Business

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industrialists about the importance of reducing Government burdens on business.

Mr. Redwood: The Government get frequent representations about the need to reduce burdens or to keep them light. They also get many representations against proposals that the Labour party and, sometimes, the Commission sponsor which would burden business.

Mr. Martin: Will my hon. Friend continue not only to listen to the representations, but to act on them in every way possible? Will he remind any business man foolish enough to think that a Labour Government would be better for business of the myriad proposals which would prove the truth to be quite the opposite, which would make life far more difficult and which would especially energise union militancy which is at the bottom of some of the proposals?

Mr. Redwood: I can promise that the Government will do no less. We want to keep the burdens down. Some of the burdens identified recently by business which worry it most are proposals such as the minimum wage and some elements of the social charter which would greatly increase costs and could resurrect union militancy after our years of recent success in which we have created far more harmony and success. We have a very good strike record.

Link Projects

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the budgeted figure has been allocated to link projects in the current financial year.

Mr. Leigh: The link scheme is organised on a five-yearly basis with a total Government budget of £210 million. To date, 30 programme areas of research have been approved committing the Government to expenditure of £183 million or 87 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that the system has been a total failure, which was one of the reasons why the link steering group used consultants to study the scheme? They reported back at the end of January 1991 and commented that one of the reasons for the massive underspending was the fact that one had to have three companies before one could apply. How can the Minister assess how much money will be needed when there has been a shortfall, as there was last year?

Mr. Leigh: If that programme has been such a failure, why do we now have 30 programmes targeting support for identifiable industrial priority areas, and why are there almost 200 collaborative research programmes? If it is such a failure, why have we committed £183 million? That shows that the Government are totally committed to encouraging academia and industry to work together in that excellent and successful programme.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about manufacturing output.

Mr. Lilley: The most valuable of the representations that I have had on manufacturing industry is the excellent report from the manufacturing advisory group of the CBI, which hails the resurgence in manufacturing that began in the 1980s and calls on us to continue and to build on the policies that brought that about.

Mr. Strang: Given that British manufacturing output for the previous quarter was 5 per cent. down on a year ago, and is only 6 per cent. higher that it was in 1979—while that in west Germany has risen by 26 per cent., that in the United States by 32 per cent. and that in Japan by 36 per cent.—is not it clear that Government policies on manufacturing industry have been little short

of disastrous? When will the Secretary of State increase investment in manufacturing industry and halt the haemorrhage of jobs?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's primary point was the customary short-term Labour party view—a 12-month view. He singularly ignores the performance of manufacturing under the Labour Government, when output fell. I reiterate that, as the CBI report says, manufacturing output is now up by 25 per cent. on that of 10 years ago, investment up by one third, productivity up by more than one half and manufactured exports up by almost three quarters. Our share of trade in world manufactures has outstripped that of Germany, France, America and Japan.

Sunday Trading (Legislation)

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: ( by private notice) : To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the steps that he intends to take to prevent the wholesale breach of the Sunday trading laws by Tesco, Asda and Safeway stores.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Parliament has placed on local authorities the primary responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the Shops Act 1950. Two ways are open to them: they can prosecute traders or they can ask the civil courts for injunctions ordering traders not to break the law laid down in those provisions.
Local authorities and others have asked me to take action in the civil courts because of the present uncertain state of Community law, which has recently been acknowledged by English courts, including the House of Lords. They say that this uncertainty impedes the ability of local authorities to get injunctions from the courts, and that to go to court puts too much of their money at risk.
The Community law point is this: defendant traders have been arguing in English courts that the provisions of the Shops Act are not compatible with our obligations under the treaty of Rome. They say that the provisions breach article 30—the free trade article—and are no longer part of the law of England. It follows, say the traders, that injunctions forbidding them to breach the provisions should not be granted. Both the House of Lords and a lower court have referred the relevant questions of Community law to the European Court.
Meanwhile, the English courts have made one thing clear—that any authority applying for an interim injunction will have to undertake to pay the trader's resulting losses if it loses the case in the end.
It remains the responsibility of local authorities to decide their own course of action.
For my part. any decision that I now take is my sole responsibility as Attorney-General, and not a decision of the Government. On the other hand, matters of political policy are not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If I were now to bring civil proceedings, I should have to bring a very large number of actions, and those would be no less affected by the Community law point. I believe that in those circumstances I, too, would have to give undertakings as to damages.
The law is not suspended. Local authorities can continue to apply for injunctions. Moreover, any trader who trades on Sunday, relying only on the present uncertainty, remains liable to criminal proceedings. In the light of those and all other relevant considerations, I have decided not to intervene. Naturally, I will keep developments under review.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is not the law perfectly clear and enforceable as far as British courts are concerned? [HON. MEMBERS: "English".] Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the individuals concerned are directors of very large companies, who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of smaller competitors which wish to keep Sunday special for their staff, their families and the general public? Are not those people trying to bully the Government into abandoning the whole of the Sunday

trading laws? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to use his powers under the criminal law to take those people to the courts—[Interruption.]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to speak.

Mr. Stanbrook: —to take those people to the courts and seek to get them bound over to obey the law until Christmas at least, on pain of imprisonment, which they richly deserve. When it comes to law breaking, what is the difference between a rich bully and a petty thief?

The Attorney-General: I—and the whole House—have known my hon. Friend long enough to realise, sympathise with and admire his concern for matters affecting the law. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the enforcement of the law in this regard is a matter for me as Attorney-General alone. It is not a matter, as my hon. Friend uncharacteristically suggested, for the Government.
My hon. Friend said that the law is perfectly clear as far as British courts are concerned. I have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that English courts have indicated some uncertainty as to the content of Community law. Article 30 creates rights in English law in respect of those injured by its infringement which are directly enforceable in English courts. That is why it is a relevant factor.
This issue—which is not an easy one—has absolutely nothing to do with people being bullied and absolutely nothing to do with people being rich or poor. It has to do with a law passed by Parliament, which places the principal and primary responsibility on local authorities. I have considered anxiously whether I should take action but, for the reasons to which I have referred, I have decided that it is not appropriate for me to do so.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does the Attorney-General agree that an authority charged with the enforcement of the law, as he is, has a discretion whether to proceed in a particular case but cannot lawfully adopt a general policy of not enforcing the law at all? Is that not the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in ex parte Blackburn, and is not the adoption of such a policy the assertion of the suspending power denied to James II?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly says that it is not for me to adopt a policy that binds me for the future. That is why I concluded my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington with the words, "Naturally, I will keep developments under review."

Mr. Tony Favell: What course is now open to the British Government to stop our European friends interfering with the British Government?

The Attorney-General: Equally, I understand the concerns that lie behind my hon. Friend's question. It is, however, the fact that, since 1972, directly enforceable Community law has taken precedence over domestic provisions and forms part of English law. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. David Alton: But is the Attorney-General seriously suggesting that, in the 600 cases awaiting decision by the European Court, those decisions should be set aside and that the law should remain unenforced until decisions are made—perhaps 18 months from now? When the question is asked, "Who


runs the Government?", will not the truthful answer be Sir Basil Feldman and the Shopping Hours Reform Council? Is not the right and learned Gentleman embarrassed by the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party and B & Q, thanking it for sponsorship provided for the Conservative party conference? Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman embarrassed? How much financial sponsorship has his party received this year from the big vested interests of the large stores—[Interruption.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not need visual aids.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) wishes to suggest that the Attorney-General has been influenced in this connection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—by any question of any subscription that may have been made to the Conservative party or any other body, he should stand up and make that assertion openly instead of implying that in a question on this matter. If he does that, I shall answer him in terms that he will understand.

Mr. Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking it now.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. As there is great interest in this matter outside the House, I ask hon. Members to deal with it in a responsible manner. I shall take the point of order after the statement.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in this matter he has a very special duty to the House in his office of Attorney-General and that in his statement this afternoon he has discharged that duty admirably? Does he further agree that the issue of policy is not for him, but lies elsewhere and that, as is the case in the Chamber, there is a considerable division of opinion on this matter among the British public?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. There may well be a considerable difference of opinion, but, as he has rightly said, questions of policy—and especially how long these provisions remain on our statute book—are not matters for which I have ministerial responsibility. I have to decide whether to seek to apply for injunctions throughout the country—I could not take single cases alone. The primary responsibility has been placed by Parliament on local authorities. For the reasons that I have given, I think that it is right to leave that primary responsibility where it is. As I have said, local authorities are still able to apply for injunctions and to initiate criminal proceedings.

Mr. Donald Anderson: How does the Attorney-General seek to answer an ordinary citizen who is summonsed for not paying the poll tax when that person knows that the Government have leaned on the local authorities to pursue such summonses, but when that person also sees the Government rolling over like a poodle

and conniving and colluding with the big interests—[[Interruption.]—and conniving and colluding in a breach of the law?

The Attorney-General: Questions of enforcement of the criminal law depend on whether the law is clear and questions regarding injunctions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"] Wait a minute. Questions regarding taking injunctions to enforce the criminal law are, again, influenced by the question whether the law is clear or whether it is not. If the hon. Gentleman was listening—I am sure he was—he would have heard my reference to the fact that English courts have indicated that there is uncertainty about Community law. English courts have to enforce Community law. That means that it is a relevant factor in the question whether applications should be made for injunctions. I have given an account to the House of why I have decided not to apply at this stage for an injunction. That is not to say that local authorities cannot continue to apply for injunctions if they are so advised.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that no one who knows him could possibly doubt his personal integrity, but does he not agree that the people who made that announcement are behaving with a flagrant disregard for the law and are adopting an attitude which, frankly, is utterly unacceptable to many Conservative Members?

The Attorney-General: I recognise that it is very unacceptable to my hon. Friend and to many others that people should say that they will trade on Sundays. My job is to decide whether I should intervene to supplant the primary responsibility of local authorities, which Parliament placed upon them as long ago as 1950. For the reasons I have given, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to take that action.

Mr. David Trimble: One appreciates that one of the difficulties in this situation is that the criminal sanctions that are available to local authorities are unlikely to be effective. Surely the Attorney-General realises that this is the right type of situation for recourse to an injunction, because we are dealing with what appears to be a flagrant conspiracy by a significant number of retail chains to flout the law deliberately on a massive scale. Surely the Attorney-General realises that it is not appropriate just to leave this matter to local authorities; potentially, this is a situation where the right hon. and learned Gentleman should act. His failure to act is likely to send a signal to local authorities that they should do nothing.
On the European law, although there may be colourable issues involved, is it not significant that another European Government are introducing proposals to make Sunday a compulsory rest day? That demonstrates that they do not consider that there is any significance attached to the European law argument.

The Attorney-General: I must repeat that questions of political policy are not for me in this regard. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about the criminal sanction that is available to local authorities under the provisions of the Shops Act 1950. A more effective means of enforcing the law is a civil injunction obtained in the civil courts. The question is whether it is for local authorities to exercise their jurisdiction in their areas. It is a matter of speculation, but I think that it is


likely that Parliament, in putting primary responsibility on those local authorities, wanted local circumstances to be taken into account by the enforcing authorities. Whether that is the case or not, local authorities retain that responsibility.
I have told the House that I would have to take a very large number of actions up and down the country and that I would have to give a cross-undertaking as to damages. I took those considerations into account when I came to my decision.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an extension of Question Time. I shall take one more question from each side and then we will move on to the statement from the Home Office Minister.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Following that answer, is it not a factor in the present situation that the fines that can be levied under the Shops Act are not a deterrent to the kind of people that the House has in mind today, whereas they can be extremely punitive to the corner shop, the small do-it-yourself or the small garden centre? They are the very people that the House might well be minded to exempt were new legislation under the Shops Act to be introduced. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the question of the deterrent is a matter for him and is one upon which he could advise the Government to introduce urgent legislation?

The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend that the maximum fine is low. Therefore, I repeat that the most effective form of law enforcement is that of an injunction. An injunction against a big chain is no more effective than an injunction against a small retailer. If a court gives an order, it is an order that must be obeyed. It will be enforced by the courts, because to break it will be contempt of court. Whether the present Act should remain on the statute book is open to question and debate, but it is not a matter for which I have ministerial responsibility.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Attorney-General confirm that there is little practical possibility of local authorities obtaining injunctions so long as they have to give an undertaking as to damages? The reason why the Attorney-General has been asked to take action is that he is not required to give such an undertaking.
Would the Attorney-General care to tell the House why he was prepared to spend millions of pounds going to court after court, in country after country, in the "Spycatcher" case, when the Government's interests were at stake, but is not prepared to take any action when many interests, which have been evinced by Members of Parliament, are at issue?
Will the Attorney-General also confirm that in the Torfaen case the European Court laid down that article 30 of the treaty of Rome does not apply to national rules such as Sunday trading, where the restrictive effects do not exceed the effects that are intrinsic to such rules? Last April, the European Court upheld the validity of national laws on Sunday trading as they apply to Belgium and France. Therefore, even in European terms, there is little

doubt about the law. It is the sort of law that should be settled by domestic legislation rather than by a paragraph in the treaty of Rome.
Is it right that only those who are well endowed and can pay the price can have a European defence, so that we have one law for the rich and another for the poor?
Apart from action by the Attorney-General, could not the Prime Minister take the opportunity of Maastricht to redefine matters such as the Sunday trading laws, which should be entirely a matter of British domestic competence and on which the law should be domestic, clear, understood and enforceable?

The Attorney-General: First, on the question whether I would have to give a cross-undertaking to pay damages if I lost an action, I am advised that, in the circumstances with which I am dealing, I would have to give such an undertaking if I were granted an application for an interim injunction. I accept that advice, although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the normal rule is that the Crown does not have to give such an undertaking.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was an ingenious reference to the "Spycatcher" case. That action was brought to enforce a life-long duty of confidentiality owed to the Crown. No circumstances in that case put the primary responsibility for enforcing such a duty on local authorities or anyone else, except the Crown and its representatives. The money involved was money well spent, because it resulted in the House of Lords declaring that a life-long duty of confidentiality was owed to the Crown by anyone who had been a member of the security services.
The hon. Gentleman then mentioned the Torfaen case and asked me to confirm that the European Court ruled that the Shops Act 1950 was compatible with article 30. The answer is, not entirely. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an obscure reference made at the end of that judgment has led the House of Lords—to which an appeal in the Stoke-on-Trent v. B & Q case has been made and is now pending—to refer the relevant questions of Community law to the European Court under article 177 of the treaty. That will allow the European Court to give a preliminary ruling so that the House of Lords can answer the very question whether the Shops Act is compatible with article 30.
That defence is open to everyone, not only the rich. It is now a matter of public knowledge, and those cases are well reported. Therefore, it is a factor to be taken into account—not necessarily a decisive factor—when considering whether to apply for an injunction. In my case, I would be considering whether to apply for an injunction in a very large number of cases, each time undertaking to pay the damages that would be incurred, if I lose, in the interim between getting that injunction and the ultimate hearing of the case. I have thought it right and in the public interest to take those considerations into account, and, among other factors, they have informed my decision.

Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mrs. Angela Rumbold.

Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order later.

Sunday Trading

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the reform of the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales.

Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the correct time to put points of order is at the end of Question Time. It is directly relevant——

Mr. Speaker: It may be, but will the hon. Gentleman please sit down?

Sir Peter Tapsell: This is a statement on a different subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and knows that points of order are taken after statements.

Mrs. Rumbold: As the House knows, I have held an intensive programme of discussions with a wide range of major and conflicting interest groups on possible ways of reforming the law on Sunday trading. Those discussions are continuing, although I must report that at this stage the common ground is limited.
In 1985, Parliament endorsed in principle the conclusion of the Auld committee that total deregulation was the only sensible reform. Although our subsequent measure was approved in another place, it was not passed in this House. Since then, we have made it clear that we will be prepared to consider measures which fall short of total deregulation of the Sunday trading laws, if they would be workable and enforceable, would command popular support and would be accepted by the House. Despite our continued efforts and encouragement, the form of such measures remains widely disputed.
The current uncertainty in relation to Community law to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred is also a factor. It would not be sensible to settle policy on the merits of proposals for continuing to restrict trading in types or classes of goods until the compatibility of such measures with Community law has been determined. It is our intention, therefore, to bring forward proposals for reform once the legal position is clear.

Mr. Stuart Randall: First of all, I thank the Minister. Is she aware that the country will be disappointed in her statement, which says absolutely nothing of significance, except that we shall have to wait for the European Court to rule on shopping hours? When does the Minister expect the European Court to make its ruling on how the Shops Act 1950 interrelates with the European legislation? What does she expect traders who have decided to embark on a campaign of law breaking to do? Does she expect them to continue law breaking after Christmas and indefinitely? What about those companies that are doubtful about what action to take but feel that they should adhere to the law? Does not the right hon. Lady feel that her statement today will drive companies to break the law for commercial reasons? Are not the Government being grossly irresponsible in allowing that?
Is not the right hon. Lady aware that, particularly after her statement, the Government will be seen not to be in control of Sunday trading, and that their policy will be viewed as dictated by certain large businesses? Is she also aware that there is concern in the country that some of those companies—which are determining Government policy when the Government should be doing so—are substantial donors to the Conservative party?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that many people, both in the House and throughout the country, will be exceedingly disappointed that the consultations with various interest groups about changing the 1950 Act, to which she referred, should be taking so long? Why has she been consulting for nearly a year with no results? Why does she not have a joint conference on the matter along the lines proposed by the Labour party? Now that we—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are serious matters which are of grave concern to a great many people outside the House.

Mr. Randall: Now that we know that the Attorney-General has decided not to intervene to enforce the law, does it not mean that the Prime Minister's statement at the Tory party conference, in which he said that he wanted the law adhered to, adds up to nothing short of hypocrisy? How does the hon. Lady distinguish between those who break the law because they do not like the poll tax and those who break the law because they do not like the Shops Act?
Her statement is nothing short of a disaster. The Government are not acting to enforce the law. That has serious implications for our democracy and represents a major failure by the Government in the administration of this country.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made plain to the House the legal position on Sunday trading and the implications of the European Court of Justice ruling on the matter. I was asked whether it would be possible to legislate quickly. The realistic timetable for legislation is not at risk, since clarification of the question is expected in the coming months. I think that that is the response that the hon. Gentleman wanted.
I make it plain that I do not condone the plans of some major retailers to open their shops on Sundays before Christmas. I make it equally plain that I commend those retailers who remain committed to complying with the clear intentions of the law. The hon. Gentleman asked me about my consultations with many interested parties. It has been exceedingly difficult to find any common ground that is acceptable from one extreme to the other.
I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to come and listen to the many different deliberations, queries and points that have been put to me. It is exceedingly important for the hon. Gentleman to understand, as many of his hon. Friends understand, that the Labour party has no answer to this question. I would be glad to see him come to the Dispatch Box and tell me about Labour's plans.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Audrey Wise.

Hon. Members: Wrong side.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I know, but there is so much noise that it is difficult to concentrate.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the position of the Labour party at this time is that the law should be obeyed. Does the Minister realise that it will not have escaped attention that she picked her words very carefully? She said that she does not "condone". Does she unreservedly condemn this law breaking? Is she aware that employers will be using their power as employers to persuade their workers to break the law?
Will the Minister comment on that? If she says that they will use only volunteers, will she accept that it is a very novel defence of law breaking to say that only volunteers will be used? Will——

Mr. Speaker: No. That is a very long question.

Mrs. Rumbold: I have made perfectly plain my views on opening on Sundays by the major retailers. I do not condone it, and I commend those retailers who have said that they will not open on Sundays. The hon. Lady's question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Opposition that this is a very important matter. We should conduct ourselves in a responsible manner.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady asked about shop workers and voluntary workers. This is essentially a matter of the contractual relationship between employee and employer. I understand that the retailers who have said that they will open on Sundays in the run-up to Christmas have given public assurances that none of their employees will be required to work on those days if they do not want to, and that they will pay additional rates to those who work. That is a matter for them.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a sensible statement. Is it not obvious that no hon. Member can do anything but condemn flagrant breaches of the law? It does not lie in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to bring actions in this matter: it is at the door of the local authorities to bring actions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Shops Bill had reached the statute book in 1986, this stupid situation would not have arisen? A number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will have to account for that. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the overwhelming majority of people in this country want us to change the law on Sunday opening, and as soon as possible?

Mr. Speaker:: Order. We cannot have a debate on this matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must sit down. We cannot have a debate. I ask hon. Members to put questions, and single questions. [Interruption.] Mrs. Edwina Currie.

Mrs. Rumbold: If I may answer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I agree with the points that he has made, in particular about the attempts that the Government have made to introduce legislation and the responsibility that all hon. Members have for the decisions that they made there. That

responsibility, for their view on the Bill, reflects the difficulties of bringing before the House any proposal for legislation that will make any sense, as it is clear that hon. Members accurately reflect the divisions in the outside world.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Which parts of British law——

Hon. Members: Wrong side.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but even I am getting confused. I called two hon. Members from the Opposition side, and I am now balancing that by calling two from the Government side.

Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Which part of the British law are the Government thinking of changing? Is it Scottish law, which permits people to go shopping on Sunday, or English law, which prevents them from going shopping on Sunday? Is it not wrong that some of my constituents have rights on Sundays to observe as they wish and think proper and most of my constituents have no right to do what they want to do, which is to go shopping?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She puts in a clear way the predicament that faces the House. Whereas one part of the United Kingdom is able to operate its will in the way that she outlines, in England it is not possible yet to do so. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, we have to wait until the law is clarified.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Minister aware that, in Scotland, many workers are being compelled to work on Sundays, that many are now being compelled to accept new contracts, and that wages have been reduced to a single basic wage? Is she aware that Tesco has written to the Government claiming that it has been forced into breaching the law by the Government's inactivity in bringing to book many of the companies that are operating illegally in Britain? Why will the Government not ensure that all companies keep to the law?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman knows that the law in Scotland differs from the law in this country——

Mr. James Wallace: Which country?

Mrs. Rumbold: —and the retailers there are operating within the law in Scotland. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Gentleman that I would be interested to hear of the proposals that the Labour party intends to bring forward on changes in employment laws to prevent people from working on Sunday.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I cool matters down? As a simple fellow who does not know much about the law, may I come to the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Minister? If they look at the Shops Act 1956, they will see that part II of it never applied to Scotland. Therefore, the law is not different for England and for Scotland. It is a United Kingdom Act and the solution is simple—exclude England, Wales and Northern


Ireland from part II. That is very easy, and it does not disenchant us at all in the most Calvinistic part of the country.

Mrs. Rumbold: If only it were as simple as that.

Mr. Ray Powell: Has the dithering disease which affects some Ministers spread even to the Attorney-General, who advises the House on this essential issue? Some of us who were active in the Keep Sunday Special campaign in 1986 well recall that the Shops Bill 1986 was defeated by a majority of 14. Since the Government had a majority at that time of 170, it was Conservative Members rather than Opposition Members who defeated that Bill. The Shops Act 1950 applies to any trader in Britain, and that is the law. I am concerned not with whether the ex-Prime Minister's daughter is to be prosecuted for non-payment of the poll tax but with whether some of my constituents, who might forget to pay for a packet of biscuits in a shop that is open illegally, will be prosecuted under the law.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is right. When the proposal to deregulate was brought before the House, hon. Members on both sides of the House voted according to their consciences. There is nothing to refute that; the hon. Gentleman is right to make that observation.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that she is presiding over a total and utter fiasco? First, when the Shops Bill was introduced, it was not acceptable to the House, and we still live in a democracy. Secondly, what has been said today shows that we bow our heads to Europe and that we are not a sovereign Parliament. Thirdly, people in the country expect action; they do not wish to see the law being put aside as the big supermarkets are about to do. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she has the appropriate gentlemen in and tells them precisely what to do over Christmas.

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I reiterate that the law, and the availability of the European Court of Justice to the British law, was laid down under article 177 of the 1972 treaty some 20 years ago and has been accepted practice in Britain for a long time. As to whether large retailers would accept a request not to break the law as it stands, I have made it plain at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that I commend those retailers who have taken that decision.

Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the strength of opposition to the 1986 Bill was also, as she has been reminded and as she herself acknowledged, testimony to the wish in the House to keep Sunday special? Whatever minority view there may be on the matter, there can be no question in the mind of anyone who has a clear recollection of what happened in 1986 but that Parliament still wishes to keep Sunday special.
Therefore, will the Minister bear in mind that the Keep Sunday Special campaign believes that its rest proposals—it is ready to change—are a viable consensus solution and will she reconsider them? Some sections of the retail sector want action on those lines. Above all, will she stop dithering in the face of the anarchic self-interest of the big traders?

Mrs. Rumbold: I wish that the hon. Gentleman could convince the House that, were I to bring that set of proposals to the House, they would be accepted by the majority and would provide a workable and enforceable basis for legislation. That is not my perception of either the people outside the House or their representatives within it.

Mr. Michael Alison: My right hon. Friend's statement referred to the future, but does she agree that she has important duties at present? Does she further agree that it would be thoroughly unsatisfactory, indeed unacceptable, for the Government to contemplate complete acquiescence in an open and deliberate intention to breach the provisons of the Shops Act 1950 by Tesco or any other group? Should not the writ of Britain's statute law run at least until it is definitively shown to be overridden by a conclusive Europen Court judgment? If that is not the case, will not all our laws be in suspended animation as and when any application is made to the European Court?
As my right hon. Friend is only semi-detached from the Attorney-General in ministerial terms, will she invite him to co-operate with her in securing injunctions, and, if necessary, indemnities, for local authorities that proceed under the law?

Mrs. Rumbold: As my right hon. Friend will know, it is not for the Government to secure injunctions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it plain to the House that it is still the responsibility of local authorities to obtain injunctions if they wish to establish the law as it currently stands.

Mr. John Cartwright: Many hon. Members understand that trying to find common ground between the warring parties is about as easy as securing agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Does the Minister accept, however, that any lasting compromise must depend on securing effective protection for shop workers, and ensuring that they are neither victimised nor exploited as a result of Sunday working?

Mrs. Rumbold: That will remain a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been one of the common threads in the discussions in which I have participated: most parties are agreed in that regard. I should undertake to ensure that the matter was thoroughly investigated before any legislation was presented.

Sir Michael Neubert: The campaign to promote non-payment of the community charge—backed in principle and practice by Opposition Members—has already damaged both parliamentary democracy and local authority finances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any attempt at large-scale law breaking would have serious implications for this Parliament and this Government? It is imperative that the law be enforced.
As the action of the three supermarket chains that propose to open on Sundays would, in effect, constitute an unfair trading practice, should it not be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading?

Mrs. Rumbold: I agree that a poor example is being set, not merely by the traders who are threatening to open on Sundays but by the 400 or so who are already keeping their food stores open. The position is not very satisfactory, and


I urge those people to think carefully about the implications. Local authorities might well take action against them.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Minister accept that the Government's responsibility to uphold the law is more important than ever when their own indolence has prevented the House from dealing with the problem of Sunday trading? Why does the Minister not condemn the large companies that have said, openly and blatantly, that they intend to break the law? Will she not reassure the retailers who wish to obey the law, and whose market share is threatened by those who intend to break it, and promise them some protection? Does she not have a responsibility to the law-abiding retailers of this country?

Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made the legal position clear to the House. It is not indolence on the Government's part to try to arrange a way of producing legislation that would be acceptable to the House as soon as possible, but we have not been able to do so. Today's debate, and what is being said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, demonstrate absolutely the difficulty of presenting any sensible legislation to reform Sunday trading laws.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the unedifying parliamentary spectacle that we are now witnessing is but a preview of the House of Commons at work in the 21st century? We are impotent and confused; we are forced to wait until we receive instruction from Brussels. My right hon. Friend should not take lectures about dithering from either Labour or the Liberals. Their "Brussels at any price" policy is entirely designed to allow all these rules to be introduced automatically.

Mrs. Rumbold: Let me confine myself to saying, first, that I will not take lectures from anyone about the possibility or otherwise of getting some kind of scent about the idea of legislation. I agree that the spectacle that we are witnessing today will be replicated if by any chance we introduce legislation that bends towards one or other of the interest groups.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister not agree that, whatever the law might be in the future and whatever Parliament might agree in the future, the law today—unless a judgment overturns it—is that, if supermarkets open on Sundays, they are acting illegally? Is it not therefore hypocrisy on the part of the Government neither to condemn them nor to take action? Is that because the Tory party has been bought by B & Q, Argyll and the rest? The party of law and order—the Government, the Home Secretary, the Minister and the Attorney-General—are behaving as though they have been bought by the big supermarkets. There is no other explanation for it.

Mrs. Rumbold: Such an unworthy comment could have been made in this House only by a Liberal. Section 2 of the Shops Act 1950 makes it clear that that is the responsibility of local authorities. They are perfectly capable of issuing injunctions, if they so wish, at this very time.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to be fair to those hon. Members who wish to participate in the next two debates. I shall take two more questions from each side; then we shall move on.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I agree with my right hon. Friend that nobody should wantonly disobey the law, but the problem is that, since the power-mad brokers of the Commission have got their sticky fingers involved, nobody knows what the law is. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be totally inappropriate for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to agree to concede more powers to that Commission until we have resolved this issue? When we have done so, does she not agree that, if somebody wants to sell their services on a Sunday and somebody else wants to buy them on a Sunday, it would be inappropriate for this House to get in the way and stop them from doing so?

Mrs. Rumbold: I have been extremely careful not to express a view one way or the other about the rights and wrongs of the issue as it affects the various interested parties. That would be totally inappropriate. In 1972, under the treaty of Rome, we gave the European Court of Justice the power to act over British law in this way. That is what we have asked it to do.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that we have witnessed this afternoon a sad and humiliating spectacle, with one Minister saying that she does not know whether leading companies will obey the law as it stands, even if the Government ask them to do so, and another Minister saying that it is up to the local authorities to enforce the law? Do the Government realise that they look rather like first world war generals who, facing a mass attack, tell the troops in the front line to stand and die to the last man while they flee the field of battle?

Mrs. Rumbold: What I do realise is that the question that is before the House—the possibility of reforming the shops legislation—is not something that just I think difficult but something that the House clearly finds exceedingly hard to come to terms with. The House of Commons will have to come to terms with the fact that there are a number of—if not 650—different views on what is or is not right for shopping on Sundays. We are doing our very best to come to some compromise about those views. That is difficult, because, as the House has demonstrated throughout every minute of these exchanges, so many views and so many desires are expressed by each hon. Member.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constituents in Leeds would be absolutely amazed at the general tone of these exchanges? They do not regard it as a great European issue. If they did, they would probably be cheering, in the belief that we should be more passionately committed to Europe, because of their desire, expressed over many years, by voting with their feet, to shop in all the great superstores in Leeds. Despite the fact that the Labour party has consistently pandered to the trade unions for support, the city council in Leeds has had to agree to put an end to its vindictive, selective and punitive policy.
Will my right hon. Friend say clearly to everybody that, as soon as she is able to do so, she will bring forward reforms so that there is at least some compromise that allows some free shopping to take place on Sundays?

Mrs. Rumbold: I, like every other hon. Member, from time to time read the newspapers and look at polls. I am aware that recent polls on this issue have shown that perhaps as many as 70 to 75 per cent. of people out there are in favour of some form of Sunday trading. I shall give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks—that, as soon as I can possibly do so, I shall introduce legislation that is, I hope, workable and enforceable. That legislation will need a great deal of work if hon. Members on both sides of the House are to be able to vote for it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not passing strange for a Minister to give an explanation to the House in which she refers to different laws in different parts of the nation when the Government have continued to rule a part of the nation in an undemocratic fashion? Will she look forward to presiding over a nation of shopkeepers or a nation of law breakers? I assure the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that we are accountable, and that one cannot serve God and Mammon.

Mrs. Rumbold: I can assure the hon. Member that I know of his interests as a Northern Ireland Member; it is to that end that I hope to work towards some compromise legislation in order to satisfy all hon. Members.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call first the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell).

Sir Peter Tapsell: I think that the moment has passed.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am a shopper.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I should call the shopper first.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mrs. Gorman: May I ask my right hon. Friend——

Mr. Speaker: No. The point of order is to me.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Alton.

Mr. David Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During exchanges on the private notice question, the Attorney-General threw out a challenge, asking for evidence to be produced about an allegation that I made in a question. Will you, Mr. Speaker, arrange to be printed in the Official Report copies of letters sent by the chairman of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister in October this year thanking B & Q for again sponsoring the Conservative party ball this year?
I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would also arrange for the appropriate Committee of the House to look at financial sponsorship—not of individual Ministers, because I accept entirely what the Attorney-General said, but surely we should look at links between political parties and vested interests. That should be a matter for the declaration of interests.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he should put it to the Committee concerned. It is not for me to monitor how the political parties in this place are financed.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important to point out—you will have been aware of this when the Shops Bill came before the House in 1986—that about 80 Conservative Members voted against it. I was one of them. Many of us are still here and still hold the same view. The letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is purely a thank you letter to a sponsor and nothing more. There is no connection with this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever it is, it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ron Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the law is to be more flexible, as interpreted by the Government on behalf of the big traders, will the Government also——

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot answer for the Government. What is the matter for me?

Mr. Brown: —to pay the poll tax. [Interruption.] Will the Government stop that injustice?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that arises from the statement.

Mr. Roger Gale: The House learned this afternoon, to the amazement of many of us, that the United Kingdom has been in breach of Community law since 1972. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to seek to establish whether, if the European Court finds against us, the Governments of the day since 1972 will be responsible for damages for every injunction served since then?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is to do with Hansard, and has nothing to do with the Shops Act. It is a matter entirely for you. At Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Prime Minister said:
It is entirely clear from the documents in front of us in the Treaty that what we are doing is entirely enabling for ourselves to have an option to opt in".
That is what the Prime Minister said.
As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of gobbledegook. The right hon. Gentleman made a faux pas, and did not get his answer correct. The verbatim account of his comments appears in early-day motion 262, but what appeared in Hansard was entirely different. It says:
It is entirely clear from the documents in front of us in the treaty that we are enabling ourselves to have the option to opt in."—[Official Report, 26 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 778.]
I can understand the Prime Minister wanting his staff to sort out his gobbledegook and, more important, his faux pas, but this is a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly, then.

Mr. Foulkes: Very briefly. Will you find out from the Editor of Hansard exactly what happened—who made the change and why it was made—and direct him to have the entry corrected so that we know exactly what the Prime Minister said yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I will, of course, discuss the matter with the Editor, but I have told the House before that Hansard does sort out gobbledegook. If hon. Members' speeches were always reported verbatim, they might not be widely understood.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to raise a serious and disgraceful affront to a leading hon. Member that requires you, Mr. Speaker, to act? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), Labour's transport spokesman, went to the annual dinner of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders last night only to find that a place had not been laid for him. Understandably aggrieved, he tore a strip off the staff in front of royalty and stormed out. One could understand the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the best will in the world, I cannot be held responsible for that.

Mr. Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a good try, but what goes on at dinner parties, thank goodness, is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Roger King: I know that you, Mr. Speaker, like to be fair and even-handed in calling hon. Members on a statement. I notice that you did not call 50 per cent. of the Conservative or Labour Members who were seeking to put a question, but you called 50 per cent. of a fringe party—the Liberals. Is that right, or is it a new development that the Liberals will get preference over the parties that really matter?

Mr. Speaker: The Liberal Democrats spokesman speaks for them all. However, I am pleased to confirm that I did manage to call the hon. Member at Question Time today.

Mr. King: Oh, yes.

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you heard from the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary about an incident that happened 24 hours ago, when United Kingdom nuclear weapons were exploded underground in the Nevada desert? The Nevada desert was closed, yet Parliament was not informed of the explosion.
At a time when the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons is getting out of hand, any violation of the non-proliferation treaty will only encourage other countries to proceed with their weapons. Given that serious violation, did the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary contact you with a view to making a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any notification.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I have dealt with the hon. Lady. I have done my best to help her.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for the Foreign Secretary to issue from his office at four o'clock this afternoon a very important and significant statement on Libya, which could affect the security of thousands of United Kingdom citizens, without following the normal practice of making a statement to the House and subjecting himself to questions?
There has been a multitude of reports, statements and publications in the past seven days, including a devastating leader in The Sunday Times, to the effect that the dreadful terrorist outrage at Lockerbie was commissioned by a middle east country through another middle east terrorist group. Is not the House entitled in circumstances affecting life and property to have a statement and to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but it will have been heard by those on the Front Bench. There will be an opportunity to ask about that during business questions tomorrow. It is not a matter for me.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In future, when hon. Members refer to "our country" when they mean England as opposed to the United Kingdom—which it is—will you pull them up and say that it is unparliamentary?

Mr. Speaker: I have noted that.

Mrs. Gorman: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Now, I will take the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we have been talking about shopping, and 80 per cent. of shopping in this country is done by women, I could have wished that more women had been called. In the circumstances, do you agree that, if men had to do the shopping during their working day, more women would be called during the debates and there would be more sense in the law?

Mr. Speaker: I call hon. Members to represent their constituencies, not for their gender!

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On that matter?

Mr. Ewing: Yes. Since you have been encouraging points of order, I thought that I would let you know—on a final point of order—that I shall be doing the shopping on Sunday because of the laws that apply in Scotland. If there is anything that you want for Christmas, let me know and I shall see what I can do.

Mr. Speaker: I will let that temptation pass.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 13 DECEMBER

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. David Evans
Mr. William McKelvey
Mr. Tony Favell

BILL PRESENTED

AGGRAVATED VEHICLE-TAKING

Mr. Secretary Baker, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley and Mr. John Patten, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to persons who commit offences under section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968 in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle where additional circumstances are present relating to the driving of or damage to the vehicle: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Registered Foreign Lawyers Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Opposition Day

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

Housing

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start of this debate, may I ask hon. Members who are called, in the interests of their colleagues, to make brief contributions. That also applies, please, to the Front Benches.

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
That this House is appalled by the complacent attitude of the Government towards the high levels of mortgage debt and repossession which are due to the Government's high interest rate policy, unemployment, the slump in the property market and the general mismanagement of the economy; notes that close to one hundred thousand homes will be repossessed this year and one in twelve mortgage payers are two months or more in arrears; and calls on the Government to introduce a mortgage rescue scheme as a matter of urgency.
I had already decided not to speak for more than 20 minutes, not least because the Government are so embarrassed by this case that they are providing not only statements along the same lines as the private notice question but points of order which are designed to waste time.
The motion refers, among other things, to the growing mortgage crisis and to the need for a mortgage rescue scheme. I note that in their amendment the Government cannot even bring themselves to mention the problem of mortgage repossession or mortgage debt. They try merely to avoid it, which is what they have done since the problem emerged so drastically.
It is instructive to consider the Conservative party's promises to mortgage payers. I could take the House a long way back on that issue but I shall stick merely to the commitment that the party made in 1979 so that we can examine the record and see what it has achieved. On 23 February 1979 the Conservative central office said:
The next Conservative Government will manage the economy to keep interest rates down and so reduce the cost of a mortgage.
The Conservatives were foolish and unwise enough to repeat the promise in the election manifesto of 1979. What happened? When the Conservatives won the election in May 1979, the mortgage rate rose sharply from 11·75 per cent. to 15 per cent. Mortgage rates have been below 10 per cent. for just two short periods since 1979. That is the extent of the failure of the Conservatives to deliver a clear promise in 1979 to keep mortgage rates and interest rates down. The ex-Prime Minister and other Conservatives had the audacity to say that interest rates were high in the early stages of the Conservative Government only because people were borrowing too much. It may be interesting to ask why interest rates are still high given all the Conservative promises about keeping them down.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In examining interest rate movements, has my hon. Friend noted that interest rates were at the bottom of the trough in 1983, around the time of the general election, and in 1987, around the time of the general election, and that they are now moving to the bottom of the trough in time for an


election in 1992? Is not it clear that the Government are manipulating interest rates to ensure that at times of general elections they are at the lowest possible level?

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend anticipates me. I will deal with that point in sequence.
While the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the mortgage rate was 15·05 per cent. for new mortgages, which was 2·37 per cent. higher than the average achieved under this Government and no less than 4·3 per cent. higher than the average under the Labour Government for the whole period from 1974 to 1979. In that respect, we draw attention not only to the high interest rate policy of the Government, but to their general failure to manage the economy. That rate was also the highest mortgage rate for any Chancellor of the Exchequer since, probably, the 1920s. It is difficult to check back with comparable prices beyond that. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister presided over the highest rate of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the measure of his failure.
In their amendment, the Government claim that they are reducing interest rates, and this is where I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The Government reduced interest rates before the general election in 1983. Immediately after winning that general election, they increased interest rates. They reduced interest rates immediately before the 1987 election. Immediately after they won that election, they increased interest rates. They did precisely the same when they won the election in 1979. We do not need to look into a crystal ball; we have the record, which all can see.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that interest rates in 1988 were lower than they were in 1987, at the time of the general election?

Mr. Soley: Interest rates then were only just going down. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Conservative party—anyone can look up the figures—lowered interest rates before elections and put them up immediately afterwards. That will happen next time if—and this is an unlikely eventuality—a Conservative Government are re-elected.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) may like to take another point on board. The average mortgage rate under Labour was 10·75 per cent. The figures refer to the whole period of office for each party. Under the Tories, the figure is 12·68 per cent. I refer to those figures in the context of a Government who enjoyed all the advantages of North sea oil wealth, of relatively low commodity prices around the world, and of privatisation assets, and who had none of the disadvantages of oil price rises, such as were experienced in the 1970s. Despite all that, the Government not only delivered two massive slumps, which had an effect on home ownership, but managed to deliver interest rates that were constantly 2 per cent. higher than they were on mortgages under Labour. That is a pretty damning indictment.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is not the situation now rather different from that of previous elections? We are now in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. That is the way in which the interest rate

cuts have been delivered in past months. The exchange rate mechanism will remain, I hope, as a permanent fixture for the future.

Mr. Soley: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman used the words "I hope". When I looked at the Government amendment, I was fascinated to see that it says that the House
welcomes the fact that interest rates have been set at a level within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which has succeeded in substantially reducing inflation".
Everyone who reads the current financial pages knows that the danger for the pound is that it is bouncing along the bottom of that rate. If the Government are not careful, or if they are simply unlucky in terms of decisions made by the German Chancellor about raising interest rates, they will be outside the rate in no time. We shall then be in a massive financial crisis as well as in an industrial crisis—and the Government have produced such a crisis on two occasions. The House should remember that the Government for the first time ever have created for Britain a balance of payments problem for manufacturing industry because they wiped out manufacturing industry in the first slump in the early 1980s and they are in danger of wiping out our other advantages in the second slump.

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Soley: I should like to give way, but I remember Mr. Speaker's advice and I should stick to 20 minutes.

Mr. Devlin: rose——

Mr. Soley: I will give way happily, although the hon. Gentleman should remember that it will be at the expense of other Conservative Members.

Mr. Devlin: I used the words "I hope" because the Labour party has changed its attitude on Europe by 180 degrees no fewer than five times. There is no telling whether after the next election, if the Labour party were elected to government, its present new-found commitment to the European Community will be turned on its head once again.

Mr. Soley: You would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I went too far down that road. Suffice it to say that the Government have taken away any real choice from the British people of going into a common European currency. When the previous Prime Minister signed the Single European Act, she more than anyone else put us on that course, as Conservative Members know.
The Government's high interest rate policy, which they have pursued consistently since 1979, is the root cause of the housing crisis in owner occupation. Almost 100,000 homes will be repossessed by the end of the year. When I first gave that figure, people said that it would probably not be so high. Now I note that various people are saying that the total is likely to be 115,000. I will stick to my estimate of close to 100,000. About one in 12 people with mortgages are in mortgage arrears. The 100,000 repossessions this year compares with 2,500 in 1979. The figure of 100,000 is equal to the population of towns such as Oxford, Exeter, Norwich or Basildon. Many of those whose homes are repossessed will go into bed-and-breakfast or emergency accommodation. One in 12 mortgage payers are in arrears of two months or more. That means that roughly 1 million mortgage payers are in serious trouble. When I give the figures, I am not talking


about people who hand in the keys. They are excluded. I am not talking about people who pay most but not all of their mortgage each month. We are talking about a minimum figure of 1 million.
What is the other factor, along with interest rates, that is affecting us so drastically? It is unemployment. As we all know and as the Government concede, unemployment will continue to rise. All that the Government can say is that the rate of increase is less, "seasonally adjusted"—the funny phrase that they use. The Government have already clobbered manufacturing industry in the north and they are now busy clobbering industry in the south. The net result is that unemployment in the south will, this time, rise far more drastically—and the rate of interest confirms that—than in other parts of Britain. That is why so many Conservative Members are quoted in Roof magazine as being worried about the issue. They are worried because most people in mortgage arrears or whose homes are being repossessed are in the south or the midlands—the areas having most problems with unemployment.
The recession and the collapse of house prices that goes with it aggravate the problems in the south—and elsewhere in Britain. They mean that people cannot easily trade down. People who bought in 1988 when the market was high suddenly found in 1989, 1990 and 1991 that they were selling at a loss. So they could not even get out of their debt, let alone pay the mortgage. One would have thought that, faced with those figures, Ministers would express concern.
I have drawn attention to the fact that in their amendment to our motion the Government cannot even bring themselves to mention the mortgage problem. What do Ministers say? One interesting idea comes both from the Minister for Housing and Planning and from his deputy, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). On a "World in Action" programme the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the best mortgage rescue service was a drop in interest rates. His deputy used that phrase too, on "The Time … The Place"—a programme on which I joined him. He told an audience of 50 or 60 people, all of whom had had their homes repossessed, that help was on the way because mortgage rates were coming down. I have to tell him that to someone whose home has been repossessed it makes no odds whether the interest rates are going up, down or sideways. It is too late for them. It is too late for many people, because even if interest rates came down by another 1 per cent. tomorrow—they will not—the repossession figures would continue to rise. Sadly, the prediction for the number of repossessions in a year's time is still about 100,000.
On 2 July the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
I do not accept the gloomy forecasts that are made of future repossessions. Those who coped during the period of rising interest rates should be able to cope as they fall. I would therefore hope to see fewer repossessions.
The hon. Gentleman said that only four months ago, yet it does not look too convincing now, does it?
What else do Ministers say? Another response, which has not been used so much recently, was by the previous Minister responsible for housing, who is now the Secretary of State for Employment. Under a nice headline in the papers saying:
Lodgers can ease mortgage bills, says Minister",

the right hon. and learned Gentleman was reported as stating:
Lodgers now had no security of tenure
—that was a result of the Housing Act 1988—
making it easier for householders to repossess the property…'With a minimum of effort people can raise extra income to offset the increased cost of their mortgages. That has to be good news for lenders.'
What has happened since then? One problem, which we tackle in the mortgage rescue scheme, is that when people who have taken out a mortgage have a lodger, when the house is repossessed the lodger, too, will be made homeless. What is more important, in a significant minority of cases, the lodger does not even know that the mortgage is in arrears. There is a recent case in Camden, and I could name many others. The first that the lodgers know of the threat of eviction is when it takes effect and the bailiffs appear at the door. That kind of thing was encouraged by the Minister who was responsible for housing at the time. The Government have still not dealt with it. They hoped that the building societies would change the rules. The story from which I have just quoted was based on a call to the building societies and banks to change the rules, but they did not do so.
The Government amendment says that they have achieved "diversification of tenure" among other things. Does that mean that more people are sleeping rough in the streets and more are in bed-and-breakfast and emergency accommodation?
Let us remember the Rowntree report—the Duke of Edinburgh's report—the second edition of which was published in July or August this year. It said that almost 2 million—1·9 million—homes had disappeared from the rented sector since 1979, half from the council sector and the other half from the Government's much-loved private rented sector. When the Labour party left office, private rented accommodation accounted for 14 per cent. of the rented market. Now it is only 7 per cent. There has been a marginal increase in middle and upper rent areas, but almost certainly that rise is due to the depression in house prices. When prices start to rise again a lot of the people in such accommodation will be evicted, because they have assured shorthold tenancies and it only takes six months to get them out. Then homelessness will increase again. That is what the Government are boasting about.
We cannot get rid of 2 million homes from the rented sector in 12 years, and neglect to put anything in their place, without expecting a dramatic and growing housing crisis. The collapse in the construction industry—another aspect of our concern about the state of the economy—confirms that crisis. I could use more than all the time allowed me simply in quoting the views of the construction industry, many of whose companies bankroll the Tory party. It is interesting that the number and amount of such contributions have been dropping rapidly. That is not entirely surprising when we read what Sir Clifford Chetwood, the chairman of Wimpey, backed by the building material producers, is reported as having said about the construction industry:
 This is an industry in crisis…In terms of workload and order books things are getting worse. There are harsh times ahead … Britain was on the brink of a housing crisis that would leave a shortfall of more than 1 milion homes between those being built and those needed.
Lest hon. Members should think that I am quoting an out-of-date report, I must tell them that what I have said


is taken from yesterday's report in The Guardian of Sir Clifford's speech and the survey undertaken by the National Council of Building Materials Producers.
Many other examples show that the construction industry is in desperate trouble. Increasingly, it supports the call from ourselves and from Conservative-controlled local authorities that authorities should be allowed to spend their capital receipts on housing investment, to boost the industry.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any year during the past 30 years when the construction industry said that it did not want local and national government to spend more money?

Mr. Soley: Yes, that was so for about two years in the mid-1980s. In the first part of the 1980s the industry was desperate because of the slump; in the mid-1980s it enjoyed the boom; now, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it is experiencing the bitter wind of another Tory slump. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it proves my point and illustrates what we mean by the Government's inability to manage the economy. They talk well, they talk the economy up and talk about management, but their record on interest rates, on the productive base of the economy and on great industries such as the construction industry tells a story of failure, of how weak we have become.
Even if we were to launch a major housing investment programme now, the construction industry could not deliver quickly without sucking in imports. It has not invested here because the Government have not given it the confidence to do so. There is also a lack of skilled labour. Soon 250,000 construction workers will have been lost to the industry as a result of the recession. Sadly, contrary to popular opinion, the skilled labourers lost in that way do not automatically come back into the industry when it re-expands. We have had to take that problem on board in devising the policy that we shall put into effect in government. The danger is that, even if one wanted a rapid building programme and had masses of money to carry it out, one would still be restrained by those bottlenecks. There would be a danger that untried, untested techniques for building high-rise or prefabricated dwellings would be adopted. We have set our face against that, but I can see the present Government trying to get away with it; they have cut corners with that sort of housing before.
The Government are trying to introduce schemes that they hope will buy off the voter and somehow divert attention from the mortgage crisis. The Minister recently introduced a half-baked scheme, with the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders—or rather, of one individual who works for that council, who believes that it is a good idea. Many of the building societies are not so convinced.
Basically, the idea is this: when a property is repossessed, the building society or bank informs the housing associations, which then decide whether they can take the property over on a temporary basis and rent it to someone in emergency accommodation. I call the scheme half-baked, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, if you were in the unfortunate position—which I hope you are not—of having been put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation having had your house repossessed, a housing association might come along and say, "We have a property in which to rehouse you, and you could find

yourself back in your own property. Theoretically, that could happen, although statistically you would be more likely to end up in someone else's property". Surely the Government have the wit to understand that that is a chronically inefficient way of dealing with the problem.
I do not think that I am making an accusation that the Government would challenge when I say that the main aim of the scheme is to boost house prices by holding back from the market repossessed properties, which now account for about one in five of the properties being sold and which are depressing the property market.
We propose something rather better than that half-baked scheme. For a year now, we have been saying that the Government should urgently call in representatives of the housing associations, the main lenders—the building societies and banks—and the local authorities to set up a proper mortgage rescue scheme. Let me describe how that would work. The first aim must be to allow people to buy time—and buy it for no money—in a way that is advantageous even to the building societies and banks. If the Government were serious, they would take on board our suggestion and say to lenders, "You can repossess but you cannot evict straight away."
Let me explain the advantage of that. It normally takes building societies and banks a minimum of six months to sell a repossessed property, and it often takes much longer. Moreover, when they sell, they do so at below the normal price. We say that they should let the person stay in the property as an assured shorthold tenant for, say, six months or a year. That will give the lending institution a definite date at which it knows that it can sell with vacant possession; but, above all, it will give the individual or family concerned time to work out their options. It will also give time to consider the second part of our package—the mortgage rescue itself—which will clearly be of value to everyone.
Another advantage of that arrangement is that it will give the bank or building society an income, in the form of the rent, instead of perhaps facing a loss in the form of a management fee payable to a housing association or local authority. A property that would otherwise stand empty could be pulling in a rental income as well as providing a roof over people's heads. Finally, we, the poll tax payers, would not have to pay for families to go into bed-and-breakfast accommodation—the worst type of subsidy to give for mortgage rescue purposes—as we do at the moment. It is a crazy system. What are we doing turning the dream of home ownership into the nightmare of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, paid for by the poll tax payer? That must be gross incompetence as well as lack of concern.
The second part of our mortgage rescue package is the option of shared ownership. Many people are in trouble with their payments and are headed for repossession and, at present, there is no alternative to that, even though, in many cases, their incomes may not have dropped so catastrophically that they cannot pay part of the money that they owe. I am talking, for example, about people who lose overtime earnings and so on. In such circumstances, it would be sensible to allow a local authority or housing association to buy the property and immediately sell part of the equity to the occupier, who would then pay part rent and part mortgage and who could step back to full ownership when his financial situation improved. That would help a lot of people.
Another critical part of our package concerns help for those in dire trouble because of a family breakdown—the classic example—or because the wage earner in the family has lost his job and has no possibility of finding another in the reasonably near future. Families who lose their income completely often end up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is not only more humane but infinitely better financially, both for the country and for the families, to allow a housing association or council to buy the property and to transfer the people living in it to the tenanted sector.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that the cost of those two schemes would be a sinking fund of £100 million. The House should bear in mind the fact that, for mortgage repossession cases only, in London alone, the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is more than £50 million, and that is without taking into account many of the other associated costs.

Mr. Simon Burns: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. If I heard him right, he said that the cost of his shared ownership scheme would be about £100 million. Where would that money come from? Logically, one could argue that, in the case of certain local authorities, it could come out of money saved from bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but we should remember that a fair number of local authorities in whose areas there are house repossessions are fortunate enough not to be on the downward spiral of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Would the money come from the Treasury or out of the community charge payer's funds?

Mr. Soley: The Council of Mortgage Lenders thinks that it ought to come from the Government, and I have some sympathy with that view. As I said, the Government should call in the lenders, local authorities and housing associations to work out the arrangements, but, as I said, the CML thinks that it should come from the Government, through the Housing Corporation, and there is some logic in that.

Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I want to move on because I am already exceeding the time limit that I set myself.
Why will not the Government consider such a scheme? There are a number of reasons, both hidden and real. They tend to argue that it could be too expensive—in terms of each individual house. That is easily dealt with: one simply has a cut-off point. No one is suggesting that one should buy back a £1 million house.
More important, the Government sometimes say that people would deliberately over-mortgage, knowing that they could be saved—that they would buy much bigger houses than they need. That is not real. Some months ago, I explained that a mortgage rescue scheme would not necessarily entail a person staying in his own house. Let us take the example of a family split—by no means a fiddle. Let us say that there are four children, two of whom go with the partner who leaves and the other two of whom stay at home with the wife, who has no income, in a five-or six-bedroom house. In those circumstances, one could buy the property but move them elsewhere in the rented stock, releasing the larger property for a bigger family. Indeed, one could resell when the time was right.
The mortgage lenders themselves know that a mortgage rescue scheme will have to happen sooner or later. They know that they are in trouble and, to their credit, they also recognise that they must pay some of the costs because they have made bad debts, and because such a scheme would allow them to avoid court costs. That is why they are prepared to consider the possibility of receiving less than the normal price for the house.
We are witnessing some horrific scenes. The Minister will be aware of the case of a woman who appeared on the same television programme as me, who has a six-month-old child and a two-year-old child and whose repossession date is 25 December. If someone had told me that such things happened in the 19th century, I should have said, "They cannot have happened very often." But they are happening now, this Christmas. What are we doing?
In Kent, I found a family who had been placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by the Conservative council. The home of two couples was repossessed. They had been renting the house from a man who was not living there and who had not paid the mortgage. Each couple was paying £80 a week in rent, making a total of £160 per week. To my mind, that amount would more than have paid the mortgage in that area. Nevertheless, the house was repossessed. One couple went into bed-and-breakfast accommodation because they had a young child and the poll tax payer had to pick up the bill.
Let us consider the case of the business man in north London who told the building society that it had overvalued his property by £20,000. The building society was a large and reputable company and denied the overvaluation. The man argued for a bit, but accepted its valuation in the end. He said, "I am doing all the things that the Government want. I am a small business man and was buying my own house. My business has now gone bust, my house has been repossessed and the building society is not only claiming the house, but the £20,000 by which it was overvalued."
I have heard horror story after horror story like that. I understand that, following the "World in Action" programme the other day, its switchboard was jammed with callers describing similar cases. What we are doing is ludicrous——

Mr. Sayeed: rose——

Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way because I have been pursuing——

Mr. Sayeed: I shall be brief.

Mr. Soley: Well, the hon. Gentleman had better be so brief as not to be true.

Mr. Sayeed: I am truly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has suggested that there are 100,000 repossessions per year and that the cost of his mortgage rescue package would be £100 million. Although that works out at £1,000 per home, clearly many of the 100,000 cases would not be entitled to help. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who would be entitled to such help?

Mr. Soley: As has been said several times, it is obvious that priority would be given to people who would be eligible under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, but the first part of the scheme that I have


described—where there is repossession, but not evic-tion—could apply more widely. My own view is that. given the right thinking, we might be able to go further in the talks that we would initiate in Government straightaway and deal with cases that go wider than the provisions of the homeless persons legislation. In that way, we might be able to get across the barrier between owning and renting by establishing some form of shared ownership. That is what we would do.
There are already a number of mortgage rescue schemes. I suggest that the Government should seek to extend the London Quadrant Housing Association scheme to the whole of London. Why not? It would save money. We could also learn from the Clackmannan scheme, which is well known and well run. The scheme in Rochdale fell through because of the lack of Government subsidy and we are, therefore, still paying for bed-and-breakfast charges. Is that sensible? Of course not.
The constituency of the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), has the seventh highest number of repossession court cases in the country. I advise him and the Government that they are risking the wrath of the electorate on this issue. There is no reason why home owners should be clobbered in that way. The Government should not have encouraged home ownership on such a scale, or got rid of the rented sector as they did, or followed that by putting up interest rates to make home ownership unaffordable for many people. Having pushed people towards home ownership by getting rid of the rented sector and driving rents up to market levels, the Government then put up interest rates, and yet they wonder why there are now queues of homeless people having to be paid for by the poll tax payers.
The mortgage rescue scheme is an idea whose time has come. The only people who are opposed to it are a Government whose time has run out.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the fact that interest rates have been set at a level within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which has succeeded in substantially reducing inflation; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the continued success of its policies to put a decent home within reach of every family, by promoting home occupation, by the success of the Right to Buy, by securing greater private sector investment, by promoting diversification of tenure and tenant involvement, by directing public expenditure so as to secure more effective use of resources and improved performance from housing authorities and by increasing the budget of the Housing Corporation by 94 per cent. over three years.".
I invite the House to reject the motion and to support the Government amendment for a number of reasons. First, the policies of the Labour party would increase rather than reduce interest rates and would therefore make the position for home owners worse rather than better.
Secondly, the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) failed in its duty to put the current problems in their proper perspective. It also ignored the underlying improvement which I am confident is under way as earnings increase and mortgage payments fall.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman did not do justice to the wealth of help and support which is now available from lenders and the Government to borrowers in difficulties.

He did not mention income support and, in particular, he underestimated the impact of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security earlier this month on income support for unemployed borrowers, to which I shall return.
Finally, having urged the Government to introduce a mortgage rescue scheme, it became abundantly clear that the hon. Gentleman has no authority to commit the Labour party to any increase in public expenditure. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked him who would pay for the mortgage rescue scheme, the hon. Gentleman quoted the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which said that it would cost £100 million and that the Government should pay. He then said, "I have some sympathy with that. There is some logic." However, the Labour party made no commitment this afternoon to funding any mortgage rescue scheme.
I turn now to interest rates. Of all the impudence of which the Labour party may be guilty, it is difficult to match that part of the Opposition's motion which berates the Government for their interest rate policy. Opposition Members have opposed many of the measures on public expenditure and privatisation which have produced the fall in interest rates. A Labour Government would mean higher borrowing, higher interest rates and more pressure on home buyers. I repeat what I and my right hon. and hon. Friends said previously. I believe that the best mortgage rescue scheme of all is the prudent management of the economy, low inflation and lower interest rates. Over recent months, the Government, pursuing policies often opposed by Opposition Members, have reduced interest rates by 4·5 per cent. That is already leading to a renewal of confidence and real prospects for stemming the rise in unemployment. More jobs will feed into greater confidence in the housing market.
The House should not underestimate the impact of those cuts in interest rates. They mean that the average borrower now pays £70 a month less than he did a year ago. With base rates falling and incomes for those in work rising, that source of pressure is clearly reducing.

Mr. Soley: The Government may have cut interest rates about seven times in a relatively short period, but they are still higher than the average under Labour. Why?

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that interest rates have fallen by more than 4·5 per cent., which is the figure that I used, he will find that he is mistaken. The point that I was making is that that welcome reduction would not have been possible if we had heeded the advice of the Labour party, because it opposed many of the measures that made that reduction possible.
I have charged the hon. Gentleman with failing to put the problem of mortgage repossessions in its proper perspective, so I shall now do that. Ten million home owners have a mortgage—one that they chose to take on after working out what they could afford. Against that, fewer than 0·4 per cent. of borrowers—about one quarter of 1 per cent. of all home owners—had their homes repossessed in the first six months of this year. That includes those who have given in their keys. More than 99·6 per cent. were not repossessed. As 2·3 per cent. of borrowers are in arrears of six months or more, that means that nearly 98 per cent. are repaying their mortgage as they agreed. The vast majority are coping. I do not in any sense belittle the distress of repossession or the problems


associated with it and I shall deal with that point later, but the figures tell a very different story from that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Home ownership remains a sensible long-term investment for those who want the independence that it brings and who are confident that the financial commitment it involves is a reasonable one.
Let me turn to the third and more substantial point—to those who do face difficulty and to the measures that are available to help them. Of course, I fully understand the trauma facing any family whose home is about to be repossessed. Many hon. Members have seen families in that position in their advice bureaux. Although the Government were not a signatory to the transaction freely entered into between borrower and lender, they should not and do not stand idly by when the borrower faces difficulties. But let me first of all make it clear that it is certainly not in every case that financial problems are the primary cause of repossessions. Marriage break-up and other relationship failures lie behind some; in others, there was initially an unrealistically large commitment. Over half the properties recently taken into possession by building societies were previously occupied by borrowers who either voluntarily relinquished or simply abandoned them, posting the keys back through the building society letter box.
I hope, therefore, that one message at least will be clearly understood after this debate. All those in difficulty with mortgage payments should contact their lender at an early stage and talk through the problem with him. Many borrowers would be surprised at the flexibility and sympathy that are shown by many lenders.
The advice of the Council of Mortgage Lenders is clear. If lenders are approached early, before arrears begin to build up, most will be only too happy to help borrowers by rescheduling payments, allowing interest to be capitalised where appropriate, or accepting less than the required monthly payment for an extended period if there is a reasonable prospect of the borrower then being able to resume full payment.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: rose——

Sir George Young: I shall give way once more, but then, out of courtesy to the House, I should like to make progress.

Mr. Hood: What can the Minister say to those individuals who bought their houses three or four years ago—they were encouraged to do so because money was thrown at them—but whose houses are to be repossessed? Those people are unable to repay their full debt which sometimes is as much as £40,000. They are made homeless and are left with a debt that they have no chance of repaying. Do the Government believe that that is the fault of the individual, or, like Pontius Pilate, do they claim that it has nothing to do with them? Who does the Minister blame?

Sir George Young: I am about to describe the solutions that are available to people who find themselves in such distressing circumstances.
The Government are reinforcing the advice available to people in such circumstances by grant-aiding the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for its work on money management counselling.
Some owners can, of course, make their own arrangements to cope—often, many do. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, some have choosen to take in lodgers to help to meet their repayments while others have moved in with their in-laws and rented out their homes temporarily.
The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) asked who is to blame for the repossessions. At the time of the great lending spree, when some lenders were offering loans of up to four times salary and property prices were soaring, a few voices urged caution. Some people will believe that building societies and banks, which thrust loans upon their customers, can hardly walk away from the problem of arrears by simply demanding repossession, particularly when there is little prospect of selling the property to recover the debt.
Surely it is better, wherever possible, to keep borrowers in their homes. I believe that the building societies are now beginning to accept that view, which will result in a reduction in the number of repossessions. They have a direct interest in reducing the number of properties repossessed—humanitarian, as well as financial.
In fact, the help given by lenders is already considerable. The wide gap between those in arrears in one quarter and the much smaller number of repossessions in the next is testimony to the help which many thousands of households now receive. That help, of course, is not entirely altruistic. Building societies have a responsibility to their members, too, and banks and mortgage insurers have a responsibility to their shareholders. But those duties are leading to a great deal of effort to find new ways in which to help individual borrowers to stay in their own homes, either as tenants or in shared ownership. In each case the insurer or building society takes an equity share. All this we encourage.
Some local authorities and housing associations are also helping borrowers to stay in their homes through shared ownership schemes. The local authority provides the capital cover for the housing association to buy the home and to sell a proportion of the equity back to the existing owner. Mole Valley, Rochdale, Clackmannanshire and Bromley all do this. Local authorities have to weigh up carefully the benefit of doing so in the light of local circumstances and the costs that might otherwise fall on the authority. It is an option only where the borrower has suffered a reduction in income but not a dramatic fall. In those circumstances, the borrower continues to pay a smaller mortgage together with a subsidised rent. Together, those payments are likely, in a typical case, to amount to about 70 per cent. of the cost of the original mortgage. That is why, for most people, talking as early as possible to their lender is the best way forward.
What action can the Government take? Direct Government help is targeted, deliberately, on the unemployed. If someone is unemployed and on income support, the cost of the interest on the mortgage will be met through enhanced income support. In 1990, more than half a billion pounds was made available in that way. This year, the figure will be higher. The hon. Member for Hammersmith totally ignored that contribution by Government and the taxpayer.
One problem is that not all this very considerable sum is used by claimants for the purpose for which it is made


available. The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that perhaps as much as half may be lost in that way, with the result that repossessions take place unnecessarily.
The change in administrative arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 5 November is therefore critical, because, in future, lenders will know when borrowers are applying for income support. The Department of Social Security will know if there is a history of arrears and will be able to make a direct payment to the lender, if that is desirable. No one eligible for income support need lose their home. The benefits of those changes will be felt next year.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith tried to wave a magic wand with promises of a mortgage rescue scheme. I found that part of his speech unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman berated the Government for not introducing such a rescue scheme, but he was unable to commit his party to its introduction.
The hon. Member for Clydesdale referred to repossessions and I would like to mention a separate but important initiative aimed at making use of properties which have already been repossessed and which might otherwise stay empty.
Earlier this summer, my Department set up a number of pilot schemes designed to bring back into use some of the 600,000 properties lying empty in the private rented sector. Under that scheme, housing associations act as managing agents for private owners who might not otherwise want the hassle of letting their property. That scheme will open up a valuable source of additional housing, by giving private owners the confidence to let their property and tenants the promise of a fair deal.
The building societies, which have up to 40,000 empty properties awaiting disposal, asked whether they could build upon the pilot schemes. Rather than allowing all those properties to remain empty until they were sold, the building societies agreed that it makes sense to put them to good use. Many have already stood empty for some considerable time. As a forced sale, their value is less than it would otherwise be. There is a danger that they will be vandalised, or that squatters will move in.
Under the new extension to the scheme, the empty repossessed houses on the building societies' books can be let to housing associations for periods of between one and three years, and occupied by families. Later, when the property is eventually sold, the lender should get a better price than he would from a forced sale now. The scheme also reduces the losses of the borrowers. In the meantime, the property is maintained and squatting is eliminated. The process also helps to stabilise house prices by controlling the rate at which empty property is offered in the market. Far from being half-baked, the scheme works to the benefit of all involved.
The Government's philosophy is to maximise investment in housing from all sources—from the private sector as well as from the public sector—and to achieve maximum value from that investment. We are offering people opportunities for home ownership and opportunities for new forms of social landlord such as housing action trusts. We want to promote partnership—between local authorities and housing associations, between public and private finance and between social and private landlords. More importantly, we want to promote partnership between all those groups and the tenants

themselves. We are seeking to improve the effectiveness of public sector investment and are attacking incompetence by local authorities.
Those policies run with the grain of people's aspirations and with the grain of market forces. For that reason, they are more likely to succeed than the somewhat muddled, uncosted proposals which the Opposition often put forward. Their blinkered approach to housing action trusts and large-scale voluntary transfers—being actively considered by Labour councils and supported in ballots of tenants—shows how out of touch they are.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith seems to think that he could increase spending on housing, without incurring the displeasure of the shadow Chief Secretary, by spending capital receipts. That is nonsense. The money is not just sitting in the bank doing nothing. The capital receipts are used to reduce the level of debt. Let me spell it out clearly. Those capital receipts have either paid off debt or are earning interest which authorities can use to service their debts.
If local authorities were told to spend those notional receipts, they would either have to borrow again, or the Exchequer would have to give authorities more subsidy every year to meet their debts. Either way, we would then have higher borrowing or public spending with the usual impact on interest rates and the public sector borrowing requirement—and the raised eyebrow of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
One cannot use those capital receipts without it having an impact on public expenditure. That money is not just sitting in the bank doing nothing.

Mr. David Winnick: Why will not the Minister recognise that so much of the hardship and misery with which almost all Members of Parliament are involved through their case work, correspondence and surgeries is due to the fact that, in the past 12 years, council house building has come to a virtual stop?
If the Minister says, "What about the private rented sector?", he should know that in Monday's Evening Standard there were hardly any flats—leaving aside one-room accommodation—under £120 a week. They are usually modest flats, but most cost more. Does the Minister realise that people who are in so much need cannot afford to buy, even with lower interest rates? They can get nowhere with the local authority because of Government policy and can get nowhere with the private rented sector.

Sir George Young: On Monday I visited Walsall—part of the borough which the hon. Gentleman represents. During my discussions with the council it appeared that money that I had allocated to Walsall for housing had been spent not on housing but on other services. The local authority was asking me for more money for housing when it had reallocated money already voted for housing to other purposes. I found that deeply unimpressive.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way, because I can give him an explanation?

Sir George Young: I asked the chairman of the housing committee for an explanation and found it deeply unconvincing.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister listen to my explanation?

Sir George Young: No, I should like to make progress. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and make his own speech.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: No.

Mr. Soley: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has made it clear to the House—there is nothing wrong with my hearing—that he will not give way again.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that he would speak for 20 minutes and then spoke for 35 minutes. I hope that other hon. Members can be called, but they will not if I continue to give way.
Those who live on council estates are rightly concerned not so much with the global sums, the billions of pounds, but with what is actually achieved: the quality of service and the range of choice that they are offered by their landlord. In some cases, local authorities use their resources and manage their stock well. Sadly, in others they do not. In some—mostly Labour-run authorities—resources have been poured in by the Government year after year with little to show for it, because those authorities have mismanaged the funds. They do not apply them where they will have the greatest and most beneficial effect and they do not involve the tenants, or voluntary or private sectors to get the benefit of their knowledge and experience. In short, they use no initiative and show no inspiration in dealing with housing problems.
One has only to look at Meadow Well in Newcastle or at some of the worst estates in Liverpool to see what effect they have had. Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool council, said:
Tenants get an appalling service, and they know that. I think probably the fundamental cause is, frankly, we've put the interests of the providers of the service, the workforce, above the interests of the tenants".
He also said:
We are the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country…voids gone up, rent arrears soared and breaking the law on racial equality".
Manchester has 6,000 empty properties—more than any other local authority. Four Labour-controlled local authorities in London failed to collect nearly one third of rents in 1989–90. To overcome problems like that, we have introduced a significant change in our approach. In future, in allocating capital resources to local authorities, we shall rely less on allocation by formula and more on an assessment of the quality of authorities' plans, to direct resources to those councils where they will be used best. In that way, we shall get better value for money, tenants will see tangible results and standards will rise as authorities realise that they need to make a greater effort in order to gain support. We want to hear not only about problems but about solutions.
The Labour party has resisted wave after wave of innovative Government policies until finally public opinion overwhelms it. One of the most recent examples of that attitude has been towards housing action trusts. Originally implacably opposed to the idea that rundown estates should be handed over to the tenants, housing associations and the private sector, Labour now finds itself in the embarrassing position that many of its own councils are pressing for HATs in their areas and tenants are voting

to leave the control of those councils. So far, the Labour party has taken only one grudging step back and agreed to honour any existing contracts into which existing HATs have entered, in the unlikely event of their gaining power. But the waves are lapping round their feet and soon they will have to beat a full retreat as HATs become more popular and the Labour party's opposition to them another potential vote loser.
We must make better use of existing stock. In too many cases, authorities take too long to re-let vacant properties. Homes stand vacant while families awaiting rehousing have to stay in bed and breakfast. If all authorities achieved an average target of six weeks in London and three weeks elsewhere, the effect would be equivalent to 17,000 extra lettings in England, compared with 13,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It may sound obvious, but it is important that local authorities should know who is living in their stock. It is just bad management that on many estates authorities have no accurate record of the people occupying their properties and some of those people have no legal right to be there.
Finally, on the problem of those who literally have no home—the rough sleepers—considerable progress has been made as a result of my Department's £96 million initiative to help people sleeping rough in central London. Hon. Members need not take my word; they can ask the voluntary organisations. In total, 1,500 places have been provided in less than a year and taken up by people who were sleeping rough or were at risk of doing so. Moreover, 176 spaces are still in use in shelters that we opened last winter. By March 1994, the total additional permanent housing generated by that initiative will provide accommodation for 1,800 people. The measure has already made a significant contribution to the housing needs of single homeless people in London. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many voluntary groups and housing associations that have helped us to make this possible. It is our stated aim to make it unnecessary for anybody to sleep rough on the streets of central London. We have introduced more than money and hostels; we have introduced an integral approach, with training, employment and health.
More needs to be done to achieve our aims. I am today announcing a new package of measures to help single homeless people sleeping rough in London and around the country. In London, where the problem remains at its most acute, I have set aside £1 million for voluntary groups to enable them to provide up to 300 places in emergency shelters this winter. Those places will be open regardless of temperature. I am pleased to say that nearly 200 places will be available next week. That provision is part of a co-ordinated programme which we are funding through Single Homelessness in London. We are making it as easy as possible for rough sleepers to use those extra places: they are free; people will not be required to give personal details if they do not wish to; and we are providing the outreach workers with vans to take rough sleepers to the shelters from pick-up points across the capital. Information on vacancies will be readily available, primarily from the Shelter Housing Aid Centre's hostels vacancy project and, out of office hours, by Shelter's nightline. Both projects are funded by my Department. SHIL has done well in its speedy organisation, as have the other voluntary organisations involved in setting up the programme.
I am also announcing today that funding for the programme of grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary organisations for the homeless throughout the country will increase from £4·5 million this year to £6·1 million in 1992–93—an increase in real terms of around 30 per cent.—and to a total of nearly £20 million over the next three years.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it abundantly clear that he will not give way.

Dr. Hampson: Not to every hon. Member.

Sir George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I wish to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Some 93 voluntary organisations, more than 60 of them outside London, already receive grants under this programme for a variety of projects providing practical help to homeless people. I am today inviting voluntary groups outside central London to apply for the extra resources available for 1992–93. In assessing their bids I shall give priority to imaginative new projects offering direct, practical help to single homeless people in areas with significant numbers of rough sleepers.

Dr. Hampson: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Sir George Young: The policies being pursued by the Government are designed to provide the improvements in housing and higher standards that people want. More people are now housed, in better conditions, than ever before. More people own their own homes and the vast majority of them are meeting their housing costs. We have moved away from the old municipal paternalism so loved by Opposition Members towards arrangements that give people choice and opportunities to control and influence their own housing. Monopoly of housing tenure led to a decline in standards, and an absence of fresh ideas and solutions. That must have been as clear to the Labour party as it was to us, yet it has systematically opposed all our policies aimed at redressing the situation, from right to buy to HATs, grudgingly accepting them years later when they have shown that they are effective and popular. The Labour party wants to retain a power base for its councils rather than provide what tenants want. The diversity made possible by this Government, through owner occupation for many, influence over management and the use of resources for others, offers the best way forward. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hate to do this to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in the interests of Back Benchers I feel that I must. It is exceptional and unusual for the Chair to decide when hon. Members do or do not accept interventions. As the Minister made no comment on the last part of the Government motion, and as the distribution of housing corporation funds to northern cities is critically important, he might at least have been given a chance to comment on my case.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was in the Chamber when the Minister made it clear on more

than one occasion that he would not give way again. As he made that statement, I consider that his decision holds good for all hon. Members.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: In addressing the House today I bring a strong message from all the people of Langbaurgh who cast their votes in the by-election on 7 November. During my time in the House I intend to speak for all those voters and represent, to the best of my abilities, the needs and aspirations of my constituency and the wider northern region.
It has been said that Langbaurgh was discovered by the national media during the by-election, and many representatives of the media were amazed to find—to quote The Times—
the constituency was surprisingly beautiful.
I suspect that many of the people who flocked into the constituency from outside—the media, the party hacks and the pollsters—were surprised to find, not grim steelworks or a photo-chemical smog, but pleasant villages and estates, and attractive countryside and coastline. That is not to say there are no problems in my constituency—there are. Many of them are common to the whole northern region: unemployment, under-investment, isolation and Government indifference. It was due to the popular recognition that the Labour party intends to tackle those problems boldly and head on that I was returned to the House.
I represent a constituency that is a microcosm of British society. It includes former mining villages, large council estates, market towns, seaside resorts and leafy suburbs. It was that cross section of British society which returned a Labour Member to the House, and which will return a Labour Government at the next general election.
Langbaurgh was previously represented by Richard Holt, whose death precipitated the by-election which became a vote of confidence in the Government whom he supported. His time in the House was marked by a style of politics which, it could be said, led to his success in bucking the electoral trends in both 1983 and 1987. Certainly, the House will be less colourful and quieter with his departure.
I also feel a deep sense of humility in following in the footsteps of Labour's pioneers in the area now covered by my constituency. The Labour party has never been afraid to field candidates who will, with vigour, promote the principles that they were elected to defend. I recall the Labour party's first Member of Parliament for the east Cleveland district, Billy Mansfield—an ironstone miner who left school at 13 and throughout his life, from the pit face to Parliament, fought for his class and his people. I also remember Ellen Wilkinson who colourfully represented the old Middlesbrough, East constituency throughout the early 1920s. She proved that a woman could successfully promote the needs, aspirations and dreams of a heavy, industrial region that conventional wisdom then held could not be won by anybody other than a man.
I am proud and humble to be following that historic tradition and I will not shirk from being single-minded in fighting for the rights of my constituents. The great tragedy is that many of the social evils that those pioneers fought are with us again today. The simple fact is that far too many of my constituents are still unemployed, exist on low wages and are being denied access to the vital health and social services that they need to live a more healthy and less stressful life.
It is little use senior Ministers telling local people that the recession is technically over. They should try telling someone who has lost his house that it was a technical repossession or someone who is still waiting for an urgent operation that he or she feels only a technical pain. Many of my constituents suffer from severe housing problems. Too many people are still inadequately housed, too many young people are still waiting for their first proper home and too many people in the villages of east Cleveland are still living in pre-1919 terraced houses that are long overdue for renewal and modernisation. A crying local need that is given public voice through Langbaurgh borough council's housing needs survey is for low cost accommodation for low wage earners.
The distress that unemployment, poor housing, idleness and ill-health brings should be self-evident to everyone. It is evident to everyone except, it seems, for the Government's Front Bench team. In parts of Langbaurgh—in many of the isolated villages of east Cleveland and on south Middlesbrough council estates—high and continuing unemployment has become a feature of everyday life. For the one in seven of the total working age population who are unemployed in the south Middlesbrough area of Hemlington, or for the 19·8 per cent. of men who are jobless in the steelmaking town of Skinningrove, life is becoming ever more mean and brutish. The social isolation and poverty that comes with such unemployment is biting deep into the very fabric of our local society, and it is not so unexpected, is it, that such alienation has led to problems of split families, mental and physical distress, and the various manifestations of crime, vandalism and other forms of anti-social behaviour? That is not to say that crime can be excused—it cannot. But crime must not be used as an excuse for doing nothing about unemployment.
During my time in the House I intend, in particular, to campaign vigorously for the total regeneration of my constituencys' economy. I will be fighting with my other Labour parliamentary colleagues on Teesside for more inward investment, for help to diversify and strengthen our local industrial base, and for vital Government and European funding to modernise and rebuild our physical, environmental, social and training infrastructure.
The centrepiece of that work, that crusade, will be a new northern development agency. It will sweep away the collection of non-accountable, unelected quangos that pose as the Government's answer to regional needs. The agency will spearhead a new regional renaissance, bring clarity, cohesion and commitment to the need to renew the north of England. It will have responsibility for property assembly and development; and assist start-ups and growing firms. It will help to set up a northern export agency and, above all, help the technological uprating of northern industry.
During the by-election I launched what I called a 10-point economic plan—a blueprint for Cleveland. That will be a programme for action in the run-up to the general election and a checklist for the action that the coming Labour Government will undertake through the support of the northern development agency. That programme will help to revive and regenerate our local economy. It calls for urgent action to pull Langbaurgh and the wider Cleveland area out of the vicious spiral of decline,

dereliction and distress. It identifies the essential components, the key demands, of what I intend to call the new deal for Langbaurgh.
First, as a practising research scientist I am only too aware of the need for pure and applied research within our industry and commerce linked to our university academics. We desperately need a technologically advanced economy. We need to set up a new and innovative Teesside technology trust, an instrument to effect proper collaboration between industry, local institutions of higher and further education, regional financial institutions, local councils and training providers and, of course, the European Community. That will provide the structured environment in which local industry can identify its technology and research and development needs, liaise strongly with the public sector and work with local academic institutions.
As I have already said, I welcome the fact that the coming Labour Government will set up, as part of the popular move towards regional government—a move which I whole-heartedly support—a northern regional development agency. I intend to see that firms in my constituency benefit from the work of that agency, which should set tough but realistic targets for local jobs created and for local investment.
I also intend to fight for the creation of a one-stop shop for local industry so as to stop the bureaucracy and confusion of five different Government Departments all attempting to help start-ups or small and expanding businesses. This office would work with local councils, local enterprise agencies and a democratised enterprise council to offer a direct business advice service. Crucially, I want to see the launch of an emergency jobs and training package for my unemployed constituents. That package could include direct job experience—training and job seeking opportunities provided under one roof.
As those who are close to me and those who witnessed the by-election campaign know, I have always argued that individual opportunity and the economic success of one area are linked. Our economic destiny—nationally as well as locally—will be largely determined by the skills and talents of local people. We need to create a training scheme for local people and local industry. It is not enough to try to force local people and industry to conform to a remote central training plan devised and monitored by distant civil servants or by the shadowy private offices and right-wing think tanks servicing the employment Ministers. But that by itself is not enough. We need to see that all local people are able fully to participate in the local labour market. There must be a level playing field so that all people can exercise their talents and ability.
Problems of disability, special needs, or the availability of child care facilities should not needlessly deny someone the chance of competing equally in the jobs market. I intend during the coming weeks—as a matter of urgency—to begin discussions with Cleveland local education authority and the local voluntary sector to formulate proposals for a properly funded and wide ranging child care strategy for Cleveland.
The issue of industrial pollution figured prominently in the by-election campaign. Environmental awareness is now a key feature of everyday life in Cleveland. Local industry, which is often unjustly attacked, is trying hard to improve its record on pollution and environmental care. It has got little or no help from the Government in undertaking this responsibility. As a trained scientist, I am


well aware of the scale of the problem and of the means and resources needed to tackle it. I want to promote a new Cleveland-wide programme of applied research into new pollution control, waste minimisation and recycling measures and technologies that will serve to make the county of Cleveland and its industry an internationally recognised centre of excellence in the nation's arid the industrial world's battle for a cleaner, greener and more sustainable environment.
Langbaurgh, Cleveland and the wider northern region realise—perhaps more than the Government—that we are living in a world where new trading partners and new markets are developing at a headlong pace. The advent of the single European market and the implications of the Maastricht summit will affect us all, and none more so than those who, if nothing is done, could he consigned to the periphery of what may well prove to be the most important global trading bloc of the 21st century. By contrast, the Government seem interested only in placating or fooling as many of their Back Benchers as possible for as much time as possible over the full implications of an issue which cannot go away, however much the Government might wish otherwise. We recognise the importance of our new European home, even if the Government do not, and I shall continue to press for more investment to ensure the maintenance of Langbaurgh's essential trade with Europe and to see that the links to the channel tunnel, our local ports and our local Teesside airport are as well resourced as those of our competitors on the European mainland.
Finally, and most importantly, we need a totally new regional policy. But this cannot be just a faded imitation of the regional policies of past Governments—Labour or Tory. The problems are greater and the challenges more pressing. Langbaurgh, Cleveland and the northern region have suffered draconian cuts in regional assistance and regional funding since 1979. Regional assistance for the counties of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland, Cumbria and Tyne and Wear has been progressively cut by almost two thirds, a drop of about £3·4 million between 1979 and 1987. In the same period the region has experienced the biggest decline in manufacturing investment of any area in the United Kingdom—a decline of some 42 per cent. Under this Government, this gloomy catalogue of disaster, depression and decline is continuing. Figures from the jobcentres in Cleveland clearly show that there has been a drop of some 27 per cent. in registered vacancies since this time last year, and that the pattern shows no sign of abating.
I know that Conservative Members would love me to speak about Cleveland county council. Above all, we desperately need to create sources of regionally-based finance capital, the cash that is needed if firms are to expand, start up or carry out technological uprating. Some far-sighted Labour local authorities in the region are already making great strides towards this goal. In particular, I congratulate Cleveland county council on its imagination and daring in setting up a locally based and locally run £5 million venture capital fund. That is a valuable weapon in the fight to revive Cleveland's economy. Such an initiative will be closely partnered and needs to work closely with my proposed northern development agency and the new national investment bank which will be set up by the next Labour Government, and which will play a key role in areas such as Langbaurgh in the mobilisation of private capital for publicly-led

long-term investment projects to improve, enhance and uprate the infrastructure needed to sustain the economic growth for which my constituency is crying out.
I want to stress again, so as graphically to underline the point, that Labour's victory at Langbaurgh has shown that the country wants change, is crying out for change, and is determined, at the polls next spring, to force radical change. In a famous debate in the House in 1940, a leading member of the then Labour Front-Bench team, Arthur Greenwood, was begged to "speak for England"—an intervention that led to a change in Government. Over a half a century later, the people of Langbaurgh have spoken for England and their voice is finding an echo throughout the land. I both hope and believe that that voice will have the same result.

6 pm

Mr. Paul Channon: I am sure that I speak for the House when I say how much we appreciated the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar). I am sure that the House will congratulate him on the excellent way that he delivered it, and on his courtesy, clear speaking and the interesting things that he had to say. Nobody yet knows whether his stay in the House will he long or short but, whichever it is, I hope that he will be happy and have an enjoyable and successful time here.
We appreciated the hon. Gentleman's references to our late colleague, Mr. Richard Holt. He is much missed on these Benches and throughout the House, and it was good of the hon. Gentleman to pay tribute to him—we shall not forget it.
I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency fairly well. It is a constituency of many contrasts. It is possible that, when the hon. Gentleman next speaks, he will find that the House does not agree with everything he says, especially if he repeats his last few remarks. However, tonight we shall not disagree with anything he said, at least not in public. I offer him many congratulations.
I shall try to be brief, because many of my hon. Friends also wish to speak. I start by declaring an interest, as trustee of a charitable housing association. It is building a project in the constituency of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, but I have not yet visited it.
I do not often speak in housing debates. The last time I did so was in 1973, when I moved the Second Reading of a housing Bill, which the Labour Government took over and which became the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1974. I mention this because, the more I have listened to the debate, the more it has become clear that the old controversial arguments have not changed.
Furthermore, it is also clear that, when both sides of the House agree on housing policy, we make progress, but when they cannot, we do not. In the 1960s and 1970s—I give credit to the Labour party for this—the improvement of older housing became a great bipartisan cause. In the 1970s, we all supported the voluntary housing movement, which the Bill that I introduced and the Act from the Labour Government did a great deal to support. All this shows that, when we agree, we have successes, and when we disagree, we have disasters.
I do not wish to be controversial tonight, particularly as we do not have much time, but as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) criticised the Conservative Government for bringing about the decline in the private


rent sector, I should point out that the decline has gone on for a very long time. The Labour party's attitude towards rent control and the privately controlled sector, which has been maintained for a long time, has been largely responsible for the decline.
As I understand it—no doubt the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who is to reply for the Opposition, will correct me if I am wrong—there is a suggestion of confiscation if private tenants are to have the right to buy. Perhaps he will tell us exactly what the Labour party's policy is.
I very much welcome—indeed, I wish I had the chance to do this myself—the way that my hon. Friend the Minister has boosted the housing association movement. The number of houses in this sector has risen from 200 to about 500,000. I am certain that that will increase still further. I believe it to be a very important factor in the medium-term housing situation. I am sure that, after the next general election, there will be many more housing action trusts, and many more local authorities will want to transfer their properties to housing associations.
There will also be a welcome increase in the amount of housing being built by the housing association movement. My right hon. Friends in the Department have managed to double the budget from just over £1 billion in 1991 to £2 billion in 1994–95, and 120,000 voluntary housing association houses will be built over the next three years. That is a great step forward, and I believe that it is the way forward for housing in the subsidised sector.
I welcome the three-year approach, which will allow housing associations to plan their programmes properly. It was ridiculous that, in the past, a housing association would not know with any certainty what approvals it would get or how much money it would have beyond the end of the year. It is now much more likely to be rationally organised, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that.
I also congratulate them on their approach to getting private finance. I am sure that we should get value for money in this sector so as to ensure that every penny of public money is spent in the best way to provide more housing for the people who so desperately need it. My hon. Friend the Minister has also launched a study recently into ways to attract yet more private finance into the housing association movement. I hope that he will be able to tell us how long the study will take and how he sees the way forward.
Could not the Housing Corporation, which has large funds, do more? Is there no way, without breaking the public expenditure rules, to allow the Housing Corporation to invest or to go into partnership with a bank or the Housing Finance Corporation or a similar organisation? That would increase the amount of money available to be lent to housing associations, and lead to an even larger housing programme. Perhaps the answer is a mixture of public and private money—I do not know. Such a body might be able to lend at a better commercial rate, which would mean that houses would be cheaper and rents lower. I hope that the Minister's inquiry will look at that and other similar proposals.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to be careful about one point. It is true that costs are going down and that it is therefore reasonable to make a change in the total cost

indicators. However, when housing associations plan a big housing scheme, they plan a long way ahead. They have to make some assumptions about future interest rates, and when they make proposals, they base them on such assumptions. If there are then frequent changes in the cost indicators and the grant is reduced, that is threatening for housing associations. I ask not that it should not be done but that it should be done infrequently, and that more notice should be given. That would mean more stability and confidence in the housing association movement.
Will my hon. Friend look at the way in which homeless figures are recorded? Housing associations are probably doing much more to help the homeless than is shown in the figures. For example, I know of a case where a housing association bought a block of flats from some developers and allowed the developers to nominate to those flats. That vacated other flats that the developers had into which homeless people went. That did not show up as a single gain for the homeless in the statistics. There are many similar ingenious schemes around, but they are not sufficiently apparent to show how the housing association movement is helping to alleviate homelessness.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith concentrated on mortgage repossessions. We have all heard of terrible cases in our constituencies. Anything that can be done is good, but we can do even more with housing associations. I was glad to hear what he said about the initiative on empty properties. Can we not have an even more active policy so that housing associations know all the practices among other housing associations?
For example, if a housing association can buy a house from someone who has fallen in arrears with his mortgage, it should try to keep that family living there if that is possible. The hon. Member for Hammersmith criticised the Government's scheme, and I agree that it is a disaster if people have to be moved from repossessed properties into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. If a way can be found to keep them in their property, perhaps with a housing association managing it or acting as agent for the local authority, or encouraging the shared ownership about which my hon. Friend spoke, that would be much better. To do that, we need to study the best practice of housing associations. We need some imaginative scheme to help people who fall into arrears but who have not fallen into complete financial chaos.
I strongly support the Government in their desire that the voluntary housing movement should be the main provider of social subsidised housing. The expansion of the voluntary housing movement is having an excellent effect on local authorities. Local authorities which face the prospect of losing their housing stock to a housing action trust will pay much more attention to their tenants than used to be the case.
When the housing association movement grows and many more houses are transferred to it, as will probably happen, I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to keep an eye on it. There is no point in a transfer for the sake of it. The object of a transfer is to give the tenants a better deal. The day may come, although not for some time, when large housing associations have to be split up to prevent them from becoming unwieldy local authorities in their own right. The process of reform will have to be kept continually under review.
No housing association has a large enough stock to be in such a situation now, but if they are not good enough and if they become impersonal and do not give the tenants


the service they should, they should be subject to the same criticism as local authorities in a similar position. The point is to provide a better service and a greater opportunity to provide houses using public and private money to the best advantage.
There are many other topics that I should have liked to talk about. The policies that my hon. Friend and his predecessors have pursued during the past few years, particularly last year—the new form of tenure, the new partnership, the maximum value for money, the mixture of public and private funds and the new forms of landlord—offer great hope.
As we all know, there is at present a short-term difficulty. My hon. Friend is right to say that a reduction in interest rates would be the best news for those in difficulty with their mortgages, but in the medium term, my hon. Friends have laid a good foundation for British housing. I commend them, and I shall vote with enthusiasm for the amendment.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: After 12 years of office, the Government have little to be proud of when it comes to housing. They have presided over record levels of homelessness, record rent levels and record levels of house repossessions. The hallmark of any civilised society is its ability to house its citizens properly. People have a fundamental right to decent affordable housing, a right that the Government attempted to capitalise on with their ideology of a property-owning democracy. The right-tobuy policy was the Government's flagship in 1980, but because it was implemented as part and parcel of Conservative mania to reduce public spending and to restrict the powers of local government, it has contributed to the present scandalous homeless and housing crisis which is growing all the time.
Shelter's most recent report put the number of homeless people at 350,000. Some estimates are set even higher, at 500,000. As many as 8,000 people sleep rough every night. Age Concern believes that 30 per cent. of those people are over 50 years of age, many of them with disabilities. But the number of disabled persons who are homeless arid on our streets are not just among the elderly. The November issue of Disability Now quotes a new survey in Nottingham carried out among 50 homeless people between the ages of 16 and 25, which found that the majority had disabilities.
How the Government can come to the House today and call that a success is beyond belief. It is a disgrace. We are a supposedly civilised society approaching the 21st century, we have wonderful technology and great expertise, we play our part on the world stage—yet we fail miserably when it comes to housing our people.
The previous Prime Minister held up a dream of home ownership. The Government raised expectations but failed to deliver to thousands of people. Not only that, they also took away the choice of how people housed themselves. The right to choose figured prominently in all the Government's rhetoric, but when policies were implemented, choice was eliminated for most people.
The Government's housing policy was aimed at home ownership, to the detriment of the provision of affordable housing to rent. Many people looking for somewhere to live had little choice but to buy, often with 100 per cent. mortgages. For others, the opportunity was a dream come

true. They believed the rhetoric and entered the property market. I accept that many of those people have never looked back, but thousands of others have.
Mortgage repossessions have reached record proportions throughout the country. As many as 100,000 to 120,000 houses will have been repossessed by the end of the year. With the current level of people in arrears running at 750,000, of which 162,000 are more than six months in arrears, that figure is set to go even higher next year.
The situation could be made worse if and when the housing market picks up because at the moment some building societies are holding back from repossessing because of falling house values. As soon as they see a turn in the market, they will begin the repossession process, and many more families will be evicted.
The Government are in for a nasty shock. Come the general election, they may find themselves evicted from the House, but that eviction will be the result of their own actions, unlike the fate of many of the homeless and those who have had their homes repossessed.
The Government have mismanaged the economy, introduced high interest rates, implemented housing policies but neglected the need for social housing and presided over the boom and bust cycle which has contributed to the depressed housing market. In recent weeks, the Government have tried to talk up the economy, but they have failed to convince anybody that recovery is around the corner.
It is not difficult to see why the Government have failed when industries such as the construction industry are on their knees. As Sir Clifford Chetwood, chairman of Wimpey, was reported as saying in The Guardian on 26 November, the construction industry is in "shocking crisis", with no prospect of a return to growth until 1993. He has forecast 250,000 job losses by next summer, with as many as 5,000 firms going to the wall before the end of this year. He says that the country is on the brink of a housing crisis with a shortfall of 1 million homes.
Some of us have been only too aware for a long time that housing in Britain was in crisis. Most of us have only to look around to see the homeless on our streets or to visit some of the homeless organisations such as the Simon community, which I have visited twice. There are many in that community who are sleeping rough. I expected there to be 40 in Lincoln's Inn Fields, but when I went, there were 260 people. Most of them have jobs; none of them have homes because they cannot afford the three months' rent.
With the construction industry depressed, with some building societies and mortgage lenders in trouble and with unemployment continuing to rise, the housing market is set to continue to fall, and Britain's economic recovery will be further delayed. The Government must take the initiative and look to ways to reduce repossessions and the number of homeless and to provide more homes for rent.
In the short term, much can be done which will have some immediate effect. The recently announced scheme to allow housing associations to take over repossessed homes to house homeless families for a year is a beginning, but if that is to be the only scheme, it is somewhat misguided. There is not much sense in turfing one family out into the cold in order to house another which, on present trends, will be homeless again within a year unless there is some guarantee of permanent housing.
The Government must use their initiative and power to prevent repossessions in the first place. They must introduce sensible mortgage rescue schemes. The transfer of mortgages to shared ownership schemes with local authorities and housing associations is one such scheme which will work. Local authorities already have the power to set up mortgage rescue schemes with housing associations, but the Government should find ways to encourage the extension of such schemes.
Mortgage lenders must take some of the blame for the current repossession crisis. I was pleased that the Minister mentioned that. Far too often in the past, lenders have been, if not irresponsible, over-enthusiastic. I do not want a return to the days when it was virtually impossible to obtain a mortgage, but I feel that lenders should be more responsible. Perhaps they will be: there is nothing like a nasty case of burnt fingers to restrict lending.
Mortgage-to-rent schemes should also be encouraged, since they would benefit lenders as well as families in arrears. Rather than selling at auction, possibly at a loss, lenders could hold on to properties that might appreciate in value, while continuing to receive a regular income from those properties. Tenancies could be short or long term, and, if necessary, housing benefit could be provided to make the rent affordable. If such schemes are to appeal to building societies, they may have to be administered by local authorities or other housing agencies. A shared-ownership scheme would also benefit both lenders and families in arrears.
Another possibility is a mortgage-to-rent scheme with the option to buy back. Regardless of which scheme is introduced, however, Liberal Democrats recognise that the lenders would need some assistance. We suggest that the portion of income support that is allocated for mortgage repayments be paid to them directly.
Other problems also need attention urgently. The Government must tackle homelessness in general. To help young single people, we advocate reform of the social security system, enabling income support to be paid in advance and restoring the full rate of income support to the under-25s. Family credit entitlement should be adjusted to reflect liability for mortgage interest payments.
The Government should also investigate the possibility of a housing benefit allocation that takes into account mortgage interest payments. I understand that reducing mortgage tax relief from 25 per cent. to 23·5 per cent. would release £400 million—the estimated cost of paying housing benefit for mortgage interest payments. That information is contained in a report by the Council of Mortgage Lenders entitled "Time for Mortgage Benefits", which is due to be published later this week. Perhaps the Minister will look at it.
The lifting of the restrictions on capital receipts from the sale of council houses would provide an immediate injection of cash for the housing market. It would provide more homes, and it would also create jobs. Our party's programme would increase the percentage of council house and land sale receipts that can be spent by local authorities from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. when the money is to be spent on repairs and renovation.
The Government's housing policy has led to many untenable situations. Let me give an example of the ridiculous state of housing finance and the false economies

that have been made. Because of the lack of affordable housing to rent, and the lack of funds to bring poor housing up to standard, many local authorities have to resort to providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation. According to the Audit Commission figures for 1990, the cost in the first year of such accommodation in London is £15,540; the cost in the first year of building a home to rent is £8,200. Outside the metropolitan districts, the figures are £5,475 and £5,000 respectively. Those figures speak volumes about the absurd way in which the Government run their housing policy.
So far, the Government's response to the housing crisis has been dismal. Palliatives are not enough; we need fundamental change. Unless the Government take action now, the nation's housing needs will continue to increase and the current state of affairs will continue to go downhill.

Sir Timothy Raison: The debate has been marked by three speeches in particular. First, there was the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar), which was heard with much appreciation. Then there was the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Housing Finance Bill in 1972: that was the longest Committee stage that we had experienced, and it seemed even longer than it was. I was struck then by the enormous skill and patience with which my right hon. Friend handled the Committee: he provided a model for others. I support his view that progress can best be achieved when there is a measure of agreement between the parties.
As always, we heard a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Minister, who dealt effectively with the somewhat lengthy speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). My hon. Friend demonstrated that the Government care a great deal about the problems of people who are having difficulty in making mortgage payments, and that a number of effective actions are being taken. We were pleased to hear that, for real distress is plainly being caused.
There is no doubt that the measures that we took in the 1980s to widen home ownership were completely justified. I do not accept for a moment that the existence of the problems that I have just acknowledged undermines the enormous success and importance of that move. We all know that our policy in that regard will not be reversed by any other political party. However, we also know that housing policy cannot stand still. There are always new problems: we never reach a happy plateau on which there is nothing to worry about. We should be concerned about the difficulty of providing low-cost housing, for instance.
That difficulty is partly due to demographic factors. It is also due to family breakdown, which, sadly, is placing a good deal of pressure on housing, as most of us know from our constituency surgeries. We must tackle that problem. We could gain some useful assistance with overall housing strategy from the excellent report that followed the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry into British housing, which came out in the summer. I should have liked to say more about that, but time is short.
My constituents are likely to experience worse problems over the next year or so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that, and will ensure


that our policies can help. The essence of the problem is the drying up of council building, and the lack of housing association building to offset that. Until now, we were doing reasonably well. Our building programme has worked, although there has never been much housing association building for general needs.
I fear that we are going to run into difficulties. Approval for new council building in my area has been ended. There has been a sharp drop from an allocation of more than £3 million in 1985–86 for Aylesbury Vale district council to £367,000 in 1991–92, and that allocation is for improvements, not new building. This year, the waiting list will probably double. The council operates an extremely restrictive policy—it is pretty hard to get on to the waiting list—and the position is set to worsen.
Homelessness increased by about 25 per cent. between 1990 and 1991. Only about 62 housing association units are planned for next year, and, while about 40 shared-ownership units were provided by the council this year, housing associations will provide only about 19 next year. All that will mean some fairly tough problems—not for me, because I shall not be standing in the next election, but for my successor.
Wycombe district council will need, it estimates, about 1,500 units of low-cost housing over the next five years. That is based on need; it is not simply a question of demand. According to present plans, it looks as though housing associations wil provide only 300 of those units. It is likely, therefore, that there will be a serious shortfall in Wycombe district council's housing provision. It has to provide for 700 homeless people this year and it has 200 people in temporary accommodation. What is happening in my constituency cannot possibly be unique. It must be happening elsewhere.
What can we do about it? First, we have to recognise the problems. I am sure that the Minister does recognise them. Secondly, I do not mind whether the problem is tackled by an increase in the amount of private rented accommodation, or by increasing the allocation to housing associations, or even by more cuts in council building. We still need a horses-for-courses policy. The problem must be tackled by one means or another.
The debate has focused primarily on mortgage payments, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that in many parts of the country low-cost housing presents real problems. In their amendment to the motion the Government rightly say that housing policy is not about just one issue but about a wide variety of issues. I am confident that the Government will bring forward measures that ensure that low-cost housing can be made available to people who badly need it.

Mr. George Howarth: This an Opposition Day. When the Liberal Democrats have a Supply Day I hope that the Chair will take into account the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn).
The debate has greatly benefited from the fine and comprehensive maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar). He demonstrated his deep roots in the constituency and his detailed knowledge of the problems that face it, as well as the qualities of the constituency. He demonstrated also the analytical skills which, as a scientist, he brings to the

House. He analysed the problems faced by his constituency in the context of the Government's policy. We shall be pleased to listen to my hon. Friend on many occasions in the years to come.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a great deal of the recent 4·5 per cent. cut in interest rates. That is very important. However, the Minister failed to recall the fact that it was this Government who sent interest rates into the stratosphere. It is one thing to boast about a reduction in interest rates and the effects that may have had: it is another thing to claim credit for bringing them down, having sent them up into the stratosphere in the first place. Under this Government, average interest rates have been higher than at any time under any Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made abundantly clear, the Government's record speaks for itself.
The Minister referred to the Labour party's response to housing action trusts. Occasionally, he is somewhat disingenuous when presenting his case, and this was one such occasion. The Minister sat as a Back Bencher all the way through the Committee proceedings on the 1988 Housing Bill.

Sir George Young: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth: The Minister intimates that he did not do so, but he certainly took a close interest in the passage of that Bill.
He will be aware that a series of amendments were tabled in that Committee, on Report and in the other place by my hon. Friends and me. The amendments would have made housing action trusts more open, in that they would have been the subject of a genuine ballot of the tenants and would have provided tenants with the option to revert to local authority control. The Government rejected all those amendments. We are able to say now that in certain circumstances, where there is local support, we are prepared to accept housing action trusts, because the amendments that we tabled at that time but which were rejected were ultimately accepted by the Government.
All parts of the House will accept as constructive many of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). What I have just said, however, about housing action trusts undermines the right hon. Gentleman's point. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) also made a fairly constructive and in some respects progressive speech. I refer him to the motion, in which he will find much more to agree with than he will find in the Government's amendment.
The genesis of the housing crisis was during the former reign of the Secretary of State for the Environment, accompanied by the hon. Member for Acton, who, in his first incarnation as a Minister with responsibility for housing, was a member of the terrible duo that is now reinflicting itself on housing policy.
The housing problems that we now face were foreshadowed by the Opposition. We warned the Government that they would eventually have to be dealt with. I refer the House to the Committee proceedings on the 1980 Housing Bill, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said:
The Secretary of State"—
the same Secretary of State as we have now—
who has the effrontery to talk about enough new house building to meet demand, is certain to leave office with the unenviable record of having not only presided over but


deliberately brought about the worst housing programme since the war."—[Official Report, 15 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1559.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already made it clear that that prediction has come true.

Mr. Hood: Will my hon. Friend comment on the visit of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland to London yesterday, when he spoke at Dover house in Whitehall and reminded the Secretary of State for Scotland that 25 per cent. of all the homeless people sleeping rough in London come from Scotland? Is not the real cause of people sleeping rough the fact that we are not providing homes for them in their own part of the country?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Acton announced that about 1,800 places had been provided, as a direct result of Government initiatives, for people who otherwise would be sleeping rough. According to the Government's statistics, that means that between 7,000 and 8,000 people are still sleeping rough every night of the week. Those statistics were given to a Select Committee last year by the permanent secretary to the Department of the Environment. Either they have gone down, or they have stayed the same. It means that about 5,000 or 6,000 people are sleeping on the streets of London and elsewhere. The Government are complacent and smug. They have acted too late and have not done enough.

Sir George Young: rose——

Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way to the Minister, not because I am being discourteous but because he refused to give way earlier and took up over 30 minutes of the debate.
The genesis of the problem is the Government's policy of the early 1980s. Nothing illustrates more clearly the Government's appeals for people to become owner-occupiers than the words of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) at the October 1986 Conservative party conference:
The great political reform of the last century was to enable more and more people to have a vote. Now, the great Tory reform of this century is to enable more and more people to own property.
Those words are unwelcome to all those facing homelessness and repossession, who in good faith became owner-occupiers and now find themselves unable to cope with their commitments because of the recent high interest rates.
Let us not collude with any pretence that the repossession problem has not been created by the Government's relentless promotion of owner-occupation as the only housing solution. It is worth pointing out that by reducing the supply of rented accommodation, across all types of tenure, the Government have closed off many escape routes that might otherwise have been available.
The facts of the problem are a stark and sorry saga. About 85,000 repossessions are officially acknowledged and, by the end of the year, it is likely to be 100,000 or even 120,000. About 750,000 owner-occupiers are in arrears and are at risk of having their property repossessed at some time in the future if they cannot resolve their problems.
What is the Minister's response? One response is that of smug complacency. On "World in Action" earlier this

week, the Minister said that most lenders are offering a range of options. He enlightened the House on those options today. Does he suppose that those 85,000 people who have already had their homes repossessed were aware of the options but simply ignored them and let themselves be put out into the street? Of course they were not aware of them and the Government have done nothing to make them aware of them.
The Government's recent announcement—another panic public relations exercise with no real substance—underlines their inadequate response. First, homes will be repossessed by building societies. Secondly, the occupants will have either to fend for themselves or to fall back on the local authorities for temporary accommodation. After being repossessed by a building society or bank, their home will, through a housing association, be rented to another family who have had their home repossessed. What nonsense. It is musical houses—when the music stops, everybody changes house. It does not have the fun of musical chairs, because the game involves thousands of human tragedies.
What is the politics of this? We should look at the November-December issue of Roof, in which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) put his view succinctly:
I have never seen such personal misery in all of my 25 years as a Member of Parliament.
Perhaps more interesting is a source quoted as a senior Conservative whip—unnamed:
It's now clear the balance has to be redressed between home ownership and renting. There's also a continuing need for social housing which we recognise—we're not daft".
I take issue with the latter part of his remarks.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) is quoted in the same publication:
If people borrow more than they ought to, they will have to bloody well learn.
There is plenty of sympathy there.
Perhaps we should take the word of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope):
I haven't had a single letter on the subject. Unless I see figures which suggest otherwise, I won't believe that repossession leads to homelessness.
Those are the views of Conservative Back Benchers. They are uncharitable, unkind and disingenuous, particularly those who claim that they did not know what was happening. Several of those hon. Members are sitting on majorities of fewer than 2,000 or 5,000, and the electorate will take their revenge at the next general election.
The figures for housing starts across all sections have been quoted. It is sufficient to say that new build in the private rented sector, local authorities and housing associations is on the decline. Inevitably, the gap between the supply of housing and the number of people who need it will grow and grow. The contrast is stark between what the Government are doing and the programme for a mortgage rescue package outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith.
Within days of taking office, a Labour Government will call in all the interested parties—local authorities, housing associations, building societies, banks and the agencies that deal with homelessness. We shall put together a crash homelessness package and mortgage rescue package to deal with the homelessness caused by the Government's years of inactivity. The Secretary of State and his Ministers have proved time and again during their two terms of office in the Department that they are unfit to deal with


housing. Only a Labour Government will deal with it, and we look forward to the day—it will be soon—when we have an opportunity to do so. I urge the House to support the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): This has been a useful and timely debate, but not for the reasons that the Opposition intended. It has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the new thinking and well-informed contributions come from Conservative Members, while from the Opposition we hear nothing but bluster and ignorance.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) on his thoughtful maiden speech. We look forward to further contributions from him. I was interested in what he had to say. In Middlesbrough, not far from his constituency, was one of the winners of this year's city challenge initiative, with a bid that included a large housing element. The bid will tackle many of the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope that, as one of the 57 urban programme authorities, Langbaurgh will take the opportunity of bidding in the city challenge initiative next year, when it may receive extra funds from central Government to deal with the issues concerning the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh's reference to his predecessor, Richard Holt, was much appreciated by Conservative Members. I am sorry that Mr. Speaker was not here to listen to that reference, since I know that Richard Holt was a friendly adversary of Mr. Speaker.
There have been some first-class speeches during this short debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), a former Minister responsible for housing, showed that he has lost none of his grasp and expertise on the subject. We welcome the support that he expressed for housing associations. He was right to stress the importance of maximising the contribution that private funds can make to supplement the contribution from the taxpayers. Last year over £800 million was lent from the private sector to housing associations, and this year over £400 million is to be lent from the same source. My hon. Friend the Minister has put in hand a study of ways in which it may be possible to increase the flow of private finance. We hope to have the results of that study early next year.
I shall take note of my right hon. Friend's suggestion about total cost indicators and the frequency with which they are adjusted. I share his view about the desirability of promoting best practice among housing associations and others to minimise the rate of repossession.
In painful contrast to my right hon. Friend's speech, the House heard an ignorant and rather sour contribution from the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). The less that is said about it the better.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) made an eloquent plea about the shortage of affordable housing. The Government are addressing the matter urgently. We have doubled the funding of the housing association movement. I hope that my right hon. Friend's constituency and district council will receive a proper share.
I should like to make two further points to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, one of which is relevant to all rural areas. Once a needs study has been

conducted in a small rural village settlement, the exceptions policy allows a local authority to give permission for development on land that may have been obtained at nil cost or at a low cost that does not reflect its development value. That is one way of achieving a supply of low-cost housing in rural areas.
Using the same philosophy, in May we published circular 791, which encourages local authorities to negotiate with private developers for low-cost housing to be included in new housing schemes. I want local authorities to take advantage of that huge and exciting new opportunity. There is now a chance for them to play a proper enabling role, bringing together housing and planning departments to meet local housing need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who attempted to intervene earlier in the debate, made an important point about the Housing Corporation's distribution of funds to housing associations. I shall write to him about that.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I do not have time.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) was off the mark in his statistics on rough sleepers. The census showed that there were 1,300 rough sleepers in London and 1,400 elsewhere, making a total of 2,700. The figures that are thrown around of thousands of rough sleepers are without foundation. I am glad to reiterate what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said: there will be 1,800 places in permanent accommodation for people who have been sleeping rough in London, in addition to 1,000 hostel places.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I do not have time.
The hon. Members for Knowsley, North and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned mortgage repossessions, but they overlooked the fact that the Department of Social Security pays £500 million of income support a year exclusively to meet the mortgage interest commitments of income support claimants. That is a huge programme, which is likely to increase this year, and its effect is precisely to achieve the objective that we all share—to prevent repossessions.
The Opposition remain addicted to the solutions of the 1960s, regardless of their failure then and their irrelevance now. Their approach to the problem, and to almost every other problem, is to mouth carefully crafted phrases that are selected for their ambiguity. The purpose is to convey the message to the audience that Labour would spend more money on this or that group, but without giving a firm commitment.
That blatant attempt to deceive his clients is unworthy of a former probation officer such as the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It is a new form of fraudulent misrepresentation. It can usually be heard in the House when the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is absent. If she were here, she might have to confirm that her priorities are confined to social security issues. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hammersmith is able to say that Labour would spend that £100 million.

Mr. Soley: indicated assent.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is confirming that he would spend that. I am glad. I wonder how near the bottom of Labour's ever-lengthening list of spending promises that pledge is.

Mr. Soley: I have told the House a number of times, but I shall tell the Minister again, that we would save £50 million on the mortgage repossession bed-and-breakfast costs in London alone.

Mr. Yeo: That is certainly helpful clarification. I think that what the hon. Member is trying to say is that there would not be any new money.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith included 16 priorities in the document that he published this year, all of which were uncosted and no order of preference was given. The mortgage rescue scheme was one of the priorities. I should like to quote from another old Labour favourite:
the lifting of constraints on direct labour organisations".
I am not surprised that the hon. Member forgot to mention that, as today the newspapers have reported the illegal award of contracts to direct labour organisations by Lambeth borough council. That pledge will fill many tenants with absolute dread. I imagine that it was included at the request of the hon. Gentleman's cronies in the trades union movement. At least we can understand why he has not tried to put a price on it.
Either way, Labour's version of the mortgage rescue scheme seems to set some new benchmark in cost-effectiveness. It is startling, even by Labour's standards.For £100 million, whether it is new taxpayers' money or not, not a single new unit of housing is added to existing stock. For £100 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, only a tiny fraction of the families who are facing repossession would receive any help. It is not the wasteful use of taxpayers' money that characterises it as a Labour proposal but the typically dominant role that the hon. Member for Hammersmith foresees for local authorities.
That is the real hallmark. Whatever question one asks on housing policy, Labour's answer is always the same: give the local authorities more cash and, with any luck, they will use it to buy some more private sector homes. It is straight back to the council monopoly landlord: take away tenants' choice, drive out owner-occupiers and let the council take over. In Liverpool, that system left almost one council property in 10 empty. That system left almost a third of the rent in Lambeth uncollected, with a similar proportion in Southwark. More than £40 million should have been taken from tenants to repair and improve stock. Labour's vision of the future is the sink estates and unwanted tower blocks.
This afternoon, Labour has tried to portray the huge expansion of owner-occupation in the past 12 years as some kind of disaster. Seven million first-time buyers since 1979 could tell Labour that they know that it is not a disaster. One and a quarter million former local authority tenants who exercised their right to buy could tell Labour that it is not a disaster. The 49 out of every 50 mortgage payers who are not in arrears or facing repossession could tell Labour that it is not a disaster. All those people know that the growth of owner-occupation has been one of the huge success stories of the 1980s.
Just as we extended tenants' rights in the 1980s in the teeth of Labour party hostility, so we shall do the same in the 1990s. Whether it is tenant-led housing action trusts,

rents to mortgage or large-scale voluntary transfers, tenants are enjoying new freedoms to choose their future—who their landlord is, how their estate is run and what form of tenure they should have. Just as Labour fought tooth and nail against the right to buy, so it rubbishes HATs, rent-to-mortgage schemes and large-scale voluntary transfers.
In the end, Labour saw the light of day and did a U-turn on the right to buy. Who knows, after 12 more years of glorious Tory government it may be forced, by popular support for those Tory initiatives, to do U-turns on them, too.
The extent of the Government's commitment can be seen in the huge resources that are being devoted to housing—not just the £7·8 billion of Department of the Environment spending but another £7·8 billion of tax relief to home buyers. That has increased two and a half times in real terms since 1979. Over the same period, spending on housing benefit has doubled in real terms to £4·6 billion. That is £17 billion of taxpayers' money in the form of cash and tax reliefs, in addition to the £1 billion of private sector lending that I have already referred to.
The Government have a multi-faceted approach to housing policy. We are promoting home ownership through the right to buy, rents to mortgages and shared ownership for families that cannot afford to buy outright. We are promoting the construction of more affordable homes under circular 791, which is opening up new horizons.
We are promoting a variety of rented properties in the private sector through the enormous growth in shared shorthold tenancies made possible by the Housing Act 1988, a growth which is now taking place at a faster rate than the decline in the old secure tenancies as they disappear. We are also promoting a range of other initiatives to bring back the landlord, such as the £25 million available for bringing back into use flats over shops.
On the local authority front, through the process of competitive housing investment programme allocations we are ensuring that, for the first time, the taxpayers' resources will go where they are most likely to be well spent. That is alongside a hugely expanded estate action programme and two housing action trusts which are now getting under way. That is all in addition to the extensive initiatives outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in response to questions about repossessions.
The contrast between the two approaches is perfectly clear. Labour has a litany of uncosted promises, fraudulently financed. It is as careless with words as it is with money. Underlying its approach is a strong socialist theme—the municipalisation of private property, the crackdown on owner-occupiers and the removal of tenants' rights. We know what Labour's housing policy means in action. Unfortunately, we can see it in Lambeth, in Southwark, in Hackney and in Liverpool. It is the same old story—neglect the tenants, waste the money, run down the stock and outlaw the private sector.
The Conservative philosophy is that of a pluralist approach—higher spending targeted to get even better value for money, the private landlord recreated, home owners helped more than ever before, tenants given real freedom of choice and, above all, an end to the old local


authority monopoly.I commend the amendment to the House and urge the House to reject the Opposition's motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 315.

Division No. 19]
[7 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene: (Paisley, N.)
Fearn, Ronald


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fraser, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beggs, Roy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Bellotti, David
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Henderson, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hoyle, Doug


Carr, Michael
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cryer, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Cunningham, Dr John
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eadie, Alexander
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum A.


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry





McMaster, Gordon
Rooney, Terence


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McWilliam, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stephen, Nicol


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Paul
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Pendry, Tom
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Martyn Jones and Mr. Jack Thompson.


Rooker, Jeff





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Chris


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Churchill, Mr


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Patrick






Couchman, James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cran, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Curry, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert


Dover, Den
Janman, Tim


Dunn, Bob
Jessel, Toby


Durant, Sir Anthony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Emery, Sir Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
Kilfedder, James


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fallon, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Farr, Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Favell, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knowles, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Knox, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, Sir David


Harris, David
Moate, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Rt Hon Tony





Nicholls, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steve
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Paice, James
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thorne, Neil


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Price, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walters, Sir Dennis


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, Sir William
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Squire, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the fact that interest rates have been set at a level within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which has succeeded in substantially reducing inflation; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the continued success of its policies to put a decent home within reach of every family, by promoting home occupation, by the success of the Right to Buy, by securing greater private sector investment, by promoting diversification of tenure and tenant involvement, by directing public expenditure so as to secure more effective use of resources and improved performance from housing authorities and by increasing the budget of the Housing Corporation by 94 per cent. over three years.

Sport

[Relevant document: fourth report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1990–91 ( HC 155), on sport in schools.]

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its concern at the effects of the policies of Her Majesty's Government on the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport and recreation:in this country; deplores the fact that the Minister's review initiated four years ago into the organisation and financing of sport has still not reported; regrets the serious decline of school sport and the proper supply of physical education teachers which should be seen as the foundation upon which all United Kingdom sport is established; condemns the appalling effects of Government policies and financing which have seriously damaged sports services provided by local authorities and educational authorities, undermining the right of all children to learn to swim, and of all citizens to enjoy their chosen leisure pursuits; condemns the lack of leadership provided by the Government for the development of United Kingdom sport and the promotion of major international sports events such as the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and world events; and endorses the policies set out in the Labour party's `Charter for Sport'.
This debate is long overdue. The Government are so ashamed of their record on sport that in the 12 years during which they have held office they have never initiated a debate on sport, unless we count debates on tragedies such as Bradford and Hillsborough and such phoney solutions as the Football Spectators Act 1989, which is now totally discredited along with the Minister who foisted it on the nation.
We are debating the motion because British sport is suffering from the effects of 12 years of neglect. The sports provision by local government—the main provider of facilities for the millions of our people who simply enjoy the pleasure of sport—has been decimated by the Government's onslaught. Sport in schools has been devastated. Playing fields desperately needed by the whole community have been sold off, developed and lost for ever. Physical education colleges have been closed and there is a shortage of qualified teachers. There are hardly any qualified physical education teachers in primary schools and the place for physical education in the school curriculum is wholly inadequate. As we warned, privatisation has barred from sports halls and swimming baths the very people whom we should be attracting into them. In sport, privatisation is a total failure.
In professional sport, football has benefited from the Football Trust, which was created by Labour, although the Government, to their credit, extended support based on the principles that we had established. The Government have done nothing for cricket, hockey, athletics, rugby league, rugby union and other principal spectator sports.
There has been no leadership in international sport. How could there be with five Ministers in 12 years? There was no help for the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, no help for the Sheffield world student games and no help for the Birmingham or Manchester Olympic bids" The verdict of British sport on the Government's record will be that it is helpless and hopeless.
As the general election draws near, a new hope and a new realism is available for sport and we set it all out in Labour's "Charter for Sport", which the motion endorses. Already it has been welcomed on all sides. [Interruption.]

I am glad that other people have a copy of the charter. As a result, we shall no doubt have a more educated contribution from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). The charter was drawn up after consultation with sport and it expresses the aspirations of sport. I present it to the House with every confidence that it meets the needs of sport.
In contrast to Labour's programme, we have the shameful dithering and procrastination of Tory Ministers. In November 1987, four years ago, the previous Minister announced his review of the organisational and financial arrangements of United Kingdom sport. He made no progress over the next three years. He has disappeared through the turnstile of government marked "exit" and, as befits a man who spent so much time getting nowhere, he has now been sent to the Department of Energy.
The present Minister has held office for 12 years — [Interruption.] I mean 12 months, but it seems like 12 years. There is still no reorganisation in sight, and there is still no report for sport or for Parliament to debate. However, the Minister has not been entirely idle. He has developed a well-deserved reputation as sport's leading chauvinist—and that is saying something. In the week in which the Prime Minister announced his new policy, "Charter 2000", the Minister rejected the recommendation of the Sports Council that he appoint two of the most able women in sport, recreation and education to be chairmen of regional sports councils—Professor Margaret Talbot for Yorkshire and Humberside and Liz Murdock for London and the south-east. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Prime Minister gets to hear about that. No doubt the Minister will plead that he is following Cabinet precedent—"No women here, although we are in favour of the principle."
I hear that the Minister has decided not to have any more formal meetings with the regional chairmen. He will meet them over dinner instead. They feel insulted.

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins): indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: I have a letter to that effect—the Minister had better investigate. No doubt he believes that the intellectual exercise involved in meeting the regional chairmen will be too strenuous for him to undertake. That is a disgraceful way to treat the regions.
Let us consider the results of the Minister's combat with the Treasury to obtain funds for sport—the subject of the Government's amendment. The amendment is fascinating, in that it claims credit for all the money put into sport by everyone else except the Government. That is extraordinary.
In the autumn statement sports funding was increased by 4·4 per cent.—from £46·7 million to £48·7 million. That is the fourth consecutive standstill budget. The Arts Council received a 14·2 per cent. Increase—from £561 million to £610 million. No wonder the chairman of the Sports Council described his grant as a kick in the teeth. No one begrudges our friends in the arts a penny of their grant—they need and deserve it all—but it tells us everything about the Government's attitude to sport.
I have always believed that in essence sport is a cultural pursuit. It provides the occasions on which hundreds of thousands of people experience a sense of pure delight through their own achievements on the sports field or through the superb sporting performance of gifted players.
The Government have no such insight; they allow sport to languish and even to disintegrate, leaving millions of young people to their own devices. Instead of harnessing sport as a positive force for good in the lives of millions of young people, the Government offer the economics of the marketplace and all the evils of boredom and frustration which affect our society so disastrously. On the "Today" programme only yesterday morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), contemptuously derided local government for spending money on leisure and sport.
The appearance of a succession of Cabinet Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, at all the great sporting occasions from cup finals to test matches is all very well, but when we consider their record in providing sport for the people, it rings hollow.
We must start to change all that. As the Labour party charter says, we shall stop sports fields and sports halls being sold off and end the nonsense of privatisation. We shall encourage local authorities to appoint development officers and create development strategies for sport. We shall insist that every child has the right to learn to swim while in primary school and the right to proper facilities in school for all sport, including team sports.
We shall insist that every sports club providing a service for the community shall be entitled to mandatory relief on sports facilities, as has long been advocated by the Central Council for Physical Recreation.

Mr. John Carlisle: On the subject of mandatory rate relief, the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Government have offered local authorities the option of 100 per cent. rate relief, of which 75 per cent. would be funded by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us with confidence that all Labour councils will follow the policy that he has outlined and opt for 100 per cent. rate relief. If not, perhaps he can tell us why not.

Mr. Howell: If any Labour council does not follow the advice in our policy I shall be surprised and I shall be pleased to learn about it from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Carlisle: My local council, which, regrettably, is now Labour-controlled, has not followed the policy so far. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have a word with it.

Mr. Howell: I shall, but I suspect that that council is following the example of its predecessor—the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I hope that that will soon be put right.
Local government facilities for sport and recreation are not only the main provider of sport for millions of citizens, but a major social service. In inner-city communities, with their varied ethnic make-up, sport is often a positive force for good. Everywhere sport, music, recreation, theatre and the other arts help to raise the spirits of our people, yet they are shamefully treated by the Government.
Local authorities own 1,700 major sports facilisties—indoor sports halls, playing fields, water parks and swimming baths. Between 1985 and 1990 the Government have cut the money for running them by 25 per cent. That is the Government's positive contribution to the growth of vandalism and hooliganism. The capital programme is just

as bleak. Four years ago local authorities were planning to spend an extra £600 million on badly needed facilities. The Sports Council says that that has now been cut to about £260 million. That is our future going for a burton.
Desperately needed maintenance work is being neglected. It is estimated that during the next 10 years we shall need to spend £1·152 million on maintenance of facilities built in the past 20 years. With present policies, there is no hope of achieving anything like that. There will be more neglect and more facilities will be closed.
No doubt the Minister will say, as the amendment does, that the Government have assisted sport through the creation of the new Foundation of Sport and the Arts. We all know that that was the result of a deal between the pools companies and the Treasury, with the Minister for Sport in absentia. We must welcome any new money for sport, including the £40 million for sport which will come from that source, but there are many worries about the operation. First, there is the question of motive. We all know that the true motivation behind the foundation was not to provide money for sport and the arts but to ditch the possibility of a national lottery, which would have provided much more money.
As our charter says, the next Labour Government will initiate an immediate review of betting and sponsorship to ensure that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition,
more of the money earned from sport should be ploughed back into sport.

Mr. Roger King: The mention of the leader of the Labour party reminds me of the celebrated story about the preparation of a recent Labour party political broadcast. I believe that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was acting as an umpire in a tennis match, but no one could find any tennis facilities in Lambeth, try as they might, so the broadcast had to be made in Tory-controlled Wandsworth. Does the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) hope that areas such as Lambeth will join in the development of sport in that way?

Mr. Howell: If that is the intellectual level on which the debate is to proceed, heaven help us all. Clearly, my right hon. Friend's party political broadcasts are so scintillating that they captivate even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).
I should like to correct a report that appeared in The Sporting Life that our review will lead to an immediate reduction in VAT on racehorses. That is not so. Our position on the subject is the same as that of the Government. We believe in harmonisation of VAT, and the present wide variety of rates of tax on racehorses throughout Europe is neither acceptable nor lawful. We remain critical of the Government for not having been more effective in bringing about such harmonisation.
Our review will certainly include the proposal for a national lottery. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made clear, in 1992, the British people are likely to have complete access to European lotteries. It will be nonsensical if our people can buy tickets to build and support sports ventures in other European countries but cannot do so to provide for sport and the arts in the United Kingdom. I must declare a personal interest in this matter, as I am a director—unpaid, I hasten to add—of the National Lottery Promotion Company. What I can say for my party is that, if we endorse a


national lottery—[HON. MEMBERS: "You'll be paid."] I doubt it. We shall seek to safeguard the jobs of people employed in the pools industry in areas of high employment, although we do not accept that a national lottery will have a substantial effect on pools betting. That is not the European experience. Our proposal has the full support of the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the British Olympic Association and most of British sport.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: That does not necessarily make it right. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the estimate that about 6,000 people are currently employed in pools work in areas of high unemployment and that one estimate suggests that only 180 people would be employed in a national lottery? That might have an adverse effect in areas of high unemployment—let alone the regressive nature of the taxation that a national lottery implies.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know that, half way through the proceedings, before the pools industry consulted Treasury Ministers, I was negotiating—on behalf of the National Lottery Promotion Company—with the industry on the premise that, to protect those jobs, it should run the lottery on our behalf. The pools industry rejected that proposal and went behind our backs. As I have said, however, European experience does not support the bogeyman theory that a national lottery would have a devastating effect on the pools. I certainly do not believe that it would and, in any case. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants a built-in monopoly for any one form of providing money for sport, especially when the amount of money that could be available for sport and the arts is as considerable as I believe it to be.

Sir John Farr: The right hon. Gentleman is clearing up misapprehensions. On another important point, is it true that if, unfortunately, the Labour party forms a Government after the next election, all private company and commercial sponsorship of sport will be brought to an end?

Mr. Howell: Where on earth did the hon. Gentleman get that idea from? I spent two years as the chairman of the team that conducted a special study for the CCPR into sports sponsorship. I endorsed it fully and my party endorses it fully.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I must get on.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: They think that you are still a Minister.

Mr. Howell: As someone said the other day, half the nation thinks that I am still the Minister and the other half thinks that I should be. [HON. MEMBERS: "What modesty!"] Modesty has always been my strong point.
There is also the extraordinary imposition of a levy of 0·2p per line, imposed without consultation on every pools sponsor in the country. That is taxation without representation if ever it existed. Now we learn officially that that cannot be regarded as a voluntary contribution. Customs and Excise has intervened and told the foundation that, unless its money is spent in accordance with the definition of athletic sports as laid down in section

121 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, all its income will be liable to betting tax. So much for the voluntary contribution—and what impertinence.
We have now entered the pantomime season; the foundation has been advised—and has ludicrously accepted the advice—that athletic sports do not include archery, sailing, shooting, gliding and all Olympic sports and, possibly, golf, which will soon become an Olympic sport. No wonder the British Olympic Association was furious: it is a gross absurdity.
I cannot understand the refusal of the foundation to offer a grant to the Whelmar Bowmer club, for example. I hope that I shall carry the whole House with me on this and that we shall send a message back through the Minister. That club is an archery club for blind wheelchair users and walking disabled men and women living on the Wirral. It needs equipment and storage, but the trustees of the foundation have turned it down because its application does
not meet the criteria of allowing aid to athletic sports".
That is disgraceful.
The trustees should show more backbone and interpret "athletics" by the use of common sense. If necessary, they should tell Customs and Excise to go to hell and so should the Minister, who knows all about the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is doing something about it.
I am not surprised the Mr. Edward Grayson, the distinguished barrister specialising in sporting law, has advised the Central Council for Physical Recreation that the definition as imposed is
a complete nonsense and a serious misconception that should be put right.
I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter.
School sport is the foundation on which all British sport is built. It is also the means by which every youngster in the land is introduced to the joys and possibilities of sport. Its importance cannot be overstated. It has never been in greater disarray. The Government carry a heavy responsibility for that lamentable state of affairs. To start with—

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: ILEA?

Mr. Howell: What about ILEA?

Mr. Hargreaves: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember, that it was ILEA, then under Labour control, which first introduced into Government-funded schools the absurd and ludicrous principle that competitive sports were injuring the growth and development of young children.

Mr. Howell: I am aware of that widespread libel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Slander."] It was both libel and slander. I investigated the matter in great detail and found that there was no truth whatever in the allegation.
I lament one thing that was happening at the time and so should the Minister. A number of our physical education colleges and inspectors and other professionals were moving away from team sports to individual sports, as though the two were in competition with each other, which is certainly not the case. People who go in for team sports want to go out walking and sailing, and that was ILEA's view. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that matter right.
The first thing for which the Government are to blame is the total collapse of teacher morale. Ministers are constantly undermining the profession. Another blow was struck to the cause of voluntary sport in schools when teachers were told that they had to clock in and record 1,265 hours per year plus additional time for marking, making reports and preparation. That meant that they had no time left to supervise school sports. It seems to me that we should properly recognise the amount of time that the country needs teachers to spend organising school sports in the evenings and at weekends and compensate them properly for it. My hon. Friends and I wish to consult widely in the teaching profession on whether such compensation should be given or whether an allowance should be made against the 1,265 hours for teachers who turn out in the evenings and on Saturday mornings.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently recommended that teachers of sport be paid for extra-curricular activities and does he support that recommendation?

Mr. Howell: As I have said, we are sympathetic to that proposition and intend to consult widely on it. I am certainly aware of the report. Unlike the Government, we do not impose our views on teacher unions. There is every good reason to consult the teaching profession on whether its members would prefer to be paid for turning out on a Saturday morning or whether they should receive an allowance that they could set against their compulsory hours. Anybody with any responsibility would want to consult on those alternatives and I am in favour of doing just that.
I take this opportunity to compliment the Select Committee on its excellent report, which has something to say to the Government about sport in schools at every point of the compass.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I, too, serve on that Select Committee and was glad to hear what my colleague on it, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), has just said. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's attacks on the teaching profession during the past 12 years have been appalling and have so lowered teachers' morale that much of the work that they used to carry out voluntarily has now ceased for reasons that are not the fault of the teaching profession? Should not the Government be ashamed of themselves for what they have done to school sports by their constant attacks on the teachers who run those sports?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has emphatically stated my case. As president of West Midlands School Sports, I entirely endorse what he said. When I attend athletics championships, I often find that as many as 45 per cent. of the entrants do not turn up because they do not have a teacher to bring them. Such statistics only underline my hon. Friend's point.
We must reverse the trend. This matter will receive urgent consideration from the next Labour Government. We shall also afford a higher place in the machinery of the Sports Council and in grant aid for development work to the National Schools Sports Association.
Perhaps the area of most vital concern is the lack of physical education teachers. It is impossible to trace any in primary schools, which is where all school sports should start. The Department of Education and Science has closed several colleges of physical education and there are now only 13 to serve the needs of all educational establishments. The number of places in physical education colleges has been cut by 21 per cent., so that only 600 specialists qualify every year. Many of them never even reach the classroom or the sports field; they are snapped up by the private sector as soon as they leave college, because the private sector recognises a good thing when it sees it.
I am told that teacher training colleges are receiving a steady stream of frantic telephone calls from head teachers who are desperate for qualified PE teachers. The Department's statistics, which suggest that we have enough teachers, are therefore meaningless in practice. The Department also believes that fewer PE teachers are needed because there is less PE in the curriculum, especially for scholars in the top 14 to 16 age bracket. Thousands of primary school teachers, who already have to cope with seven national curriculum subjects—there will be three more next September—receive no help or in-service training for PE, sport and games. Money must be provided for that training. No one can be in any doubt that primary school teachers are the proper people to train primary school children.
Professor Margaret Talbot wrote to the Minister in April outlining her scheme for a new strategy for INSET training so that the traditional providers of PE teachers —the institutions, the PE advisers and the schools, working together with sport—can meet the needs of the hour. She received a dusty answer from the Minister, who told her:
It is very unlikely that we would wish to introduce any new national arrangements which single out physical education for other foundation subjects".
It is sad to reflect that physical education which, like religious education, was understood in Rab Butler's great Education Act 1944 to be an essential requirement for the education of the whole person—both physically and spiritually—no longer has a proper place in the curriculum. It has no champion these days when the Minister for Sport is located in the Department of Education and Science. We can only ask, "What is he doing there? What has he achieved?" We shall be glad to learn later if he has achieved anything.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to outline the current position of sport in schools and the availability of resources and qualified staff. However, we should also put on the record the fact that many schools, such as Hartcliffe secondary school in my constituency, rely on the voluntary contributions of dedicated teachers who work long hours outside their normal hours of work and in collaboration with sports clubs to provide very good coaching in a whole range of sports for pupils in their area, but who do not receive any support, backing or encouragement from the Government. Sport in that school, for example, is provided only because of the contribution of those teachers.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has stated what is, regrettably, a fact of life—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Well, she is right to do so. In fact, I heard only this week


that if a PE teacher gives up his lunchtime to take sport and games in his school, he does not get a free lunch, but if he simply supervises the kids in the playground, he does. That is just one of the small anomalies to which I am happy to draw the House's attention tonight.

Mr. David Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: Although I have a lot to say, I shall accord precedence to Luton Town football club.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but will he confirm that competition is discouraged in Labour-run authorities and that some Labour authorities even ban sports days?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here when we kicked off this match because we have already dealt with that. I have already discounted such comments as totally untrue.
I turn now to the important subject of dual-use schools where we are facing another crisis. The policy in such schools is to provide extra funds from the local authorities in addition to money from the education budget so that we can provide first-class sports facilities in our schools and colleges for use by scholars in the daytime and by the whole community at all other times. I am proud of that policy because it was started when I was a Minister and has been continued by my Conservative successors.
However, although it has been an enormous success, it is now in grave danger. The Minister has told me personally that, because of the changes in the law brought about by his Government, it is no longer lawful for school governors to allow local authorities to manage dual-use sites, even if the local authority provides them. That dangerous nonsense must be rectified. No local authority in its right mind would provide money for building sports facilities to be used on a dual-use basis if those facilities could later be confiscated and taken from it. I am happy to assure the Minister that if he or one of his hon. Friends introduces a Bill to rectify this matter—I hope that this will happen—it will receive full co-operation and support from the Opposition.
We are concerned about the blatant robbery that is proposed by the governors of some opt-out schools, who seek to confiscate facilities that have been provided by the community and to acquire them as their own. I have in mind schools such as the Great Barr comprehensive in Birmingham where, when the opt-out ballot was taken, the governors did not say that, if they won the ballot, they would wish to take over the £1 million sports hall that had been provided and managed by the local authority together with a large part of the playing fields, which had been provided and managed by the local authority since 1936. But that is exactly what the governors have done. Their silence during the ballot was a deception and their actions now are reprehensible. Ministers must deal with that situation without delay. If they do not, they will kill off dual-use schemes, which is what we warned would happen when this matter was last before the House.
At Great Barr, it is a special disgrace that the governors' first victims have been Greenholme primary school next door, which has lost 50 per cent. of its use of those facilities since the opt-out, and Brooklyn technical college across the road, which has been completely frozen

out and now has no access to the sports hall or playing fields. Such governors should not be in public office. They should be removed from it or, if necessary, driven out.

Mr. Rooker: As this is probably the last time that my right hon. Friend will speak in the House on sport, I think that the House owes him a vote of thanks for the way in which he has discussed the issue of sport over the years.
The school that my right hon. Friend mentioned is in my constituency. Not only did I open its sports hall, but I was a pupil there in the 1950s. The playing fields have never been known as school playing fields. They have always been considered as a local recreation ground and they have always been accessible to the public. Although the hall is within the curtilage of the school, it was deliberately built on the boundary of the recreation ground so that it could replace the burnt-out huts, which were damaged through vandalism. That hall was partly funded by the insurance money for the damage.
The hall was never built for the exclusive use of the school. We are talking not about a wooden shack, but about a sports hall worth £1 million. Obviously the hall and the acres of land attached to it can be used exclusively by the school during school hours. However, for the governors to decide to take over those facilities in the evenings and on Saturdays and Sundays is nothing more than legalised theft. My right hon. Friend will be aware that that decision is totally opposed by the Tory councillors on Birmingham leisure services committee. The only people who support the decision are those Tory councillors who are governors of the school—they happen to be in the majority. Before the Minister makes a decision on the case, he should talk to the Tory, Liberal and Labour councillors of Birmingham, none of whom is in favour of the legalised theft that has taken place.

Mr. Howell: That was a splendid, pertinent intervention. Conservative Members may have considered that it was too long, but I am sure that they would all agree that it is a serious issue. I am sure that the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will support their colleagues on the city council.
The Minister should be aware that there is unanimity in Birmingham that it would be wrong for the school, or the assets board, to take over the facilities. I hope that the Minister will intervene, if necessary, to stop such action.

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State may be asked to consider this matter in due course. Therefore, I cannot be drawn, and nor can he, on the results of that consideration.

Mr. Howell: This is one of those times when I applaud the silence and discretion of the Minister. I hope that it means that the Minister will give deep consideration to the consideration. If a Bill such as that wanted by the Minister and me is introduced on dual use, I shall seek to raise this matter.
Today's debate must recognise the importance to society of voluntary sports clubs. Those organisations keep sport going, week in, week out, year after year. However, all over the country playing fields are being sold off and lost to the community, much of that at the behest of the Government. The Government are selling our


heritage and betraying our future. The National Playing Fields Association estimates that 800 sites are under threat—equivalent to 10,000 acres of playing space.
The first thing that the Government should do, as we would, is to withdraw the infamous circular 909, which advises local authorities to sell off playing-field space. Croydon council is a particularly bad vandal. It has already disposed of a large playing-field area at Spring Park school, Shirley, and it has another five school fields in its sight. At this rate Croydon will own nothing but concrete.
As we state in our charter, we shall charge the regional sports councils with new responsibilities to resist such a loss of facilities in the planning process and on appeal. Labour Ministers can be expected to give firm guidance on the need to retain essential playing fields for the community.
I am pleased that in the recent planning guidance the Government have suggested to local government that they are not bound to sell recreational land at its full market value, but that they can let it to sports bodies, provided that they can maintain its use for sporting purposes. That is a useful step in the right direction, but it does not meet the understandable desire of many local authorities to get the best price they can for that land because of their critical financial state. We need much more action if we are to preserve playing-field space.
We also believe that the contribution that all voluntary sports clubs make to the community should be recognised by a requirement to grant them a mandatory rate relief of at least 50 per cent. We must face the fact that many of those clubs are being seriously handicapped in different ways, for example, by the imposition of the uniform business rate. That is soul-destroying for many sports clubs.
Another example of pure vandalism by local authorities has just occurred in the Minister's backyard—he knows all about it. The Leyland DAF sports centre is a magnificent facility—

Mr. Atkins: That has nothing to do with education.

Mr. Howell: I never said that it had. I am talking about all voluntary sports clubs.
That magnificent facility provides for football, cricket, tennis, bowls and much more. The Minister has called it a jewel and he said that he would fight for it to the death. But what has happened? The Tory council met behind closed doors, excluding the press and the public, and granted planning permission for development. So much for the citizens charter. No doubt the Minister will tell us how he intends to safeguard that jewel in his crown.
Other statutory bodies are behaving like tin-pot dictators. The Forestry Commission is now charging schools that take their children to Cannock Chase for educational work about the countryside. That is extraordinary. Plas-y-Brenin national sports centre is now so market oriented that, although it was inherited from the CCPR for the use of all outdoor sports participants, it is now charging the hotel price of £50 a night. The British Canoe Union, the British Mountaineering Council and the British Orienteering Federation—the very people for

whom Plas-y-Brenin was provided—have all pulled out or will do so soon. That is another disaster brought about by compulsory competitive tendering.
Water authorities everywhere are going bananas. The Water Act 1989 required water authorities to safeguard the best interests of recreation. It said that they should take great care to ensure that existing arrangements, so important to many local communities, were not disturbed. Those important principles are now, I regret to say, being sacrificed everywhere for the highest price. Thames Water has just told Molesey boat club in Surrey that it makes
no discrimination between classes of customers",
and
there are no reduced charges for voluntary organisations.
That is a denial of the principle of rating relief for sport which attracted universal accord in the House. The Government should intervene.
We are all pleased that our football grounds are becoming much safer. We can welcome the fact that arrests are down by 31 per cent. Much of the credit must go to the Football Trust for providing video equipment that identifies offenders so efficiently and to the police who have used that new technology so skilfully. However, there is much concern about policing costs—£8 million last year. We must encourage clubs to train their own stewards and we should ask the police to reduce their demands for large numbers of officers when it is not necessary.
Another matter about which I feel strongly is the practice of some police forces to impose unreasonable demands on football clubs. They insist on the days of the week when football can take place and impose inconsiderate kick-off times. That is not the business of the police. Football is a lawful occasion. It should be treated as such and provided with the same consideration as any other sport or entertainment.
It is also necessary to express some concern about the development of the Football Association's blueprint for football. I agree with the Sports Council that it is a matter for concern that so many organisations which have a legitimate interest in the development of football were not consulted about it. Those include the Sports Council, the paying public in the shape of supporters' associations and the work force, the Football Association, the managers and the secretaries. It is good for the Football Association to think of planning for the future, but good government involves consultation and taking account of the rights of all interested parties.

Mr. Rathbone: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on second request. He has not mentioned drugs in sport and it looks as though he is not about to do so. I hope that there is cross-party support for the Government's position in support of the Council of Europe's convention on doping in sport. It is important to sportsmen and to the youngsters who admire them.

Mr. Howell: Absolutely.
Another commitment which Labour makes in its charter for sport is on the importance of international sport, especially great sports festivals such as the Olympic games, Commonwealth games, European games and world championships. The Government pay lip service to their importance, but provide no practical help. In contrast, the last Labour Government made available substantial financial aid for the football world cup in 1966 and the Edinburgh Commonwealth games in 1970. The next time round, Edinburgh did not receive a penny piece


towards its 1986 Commonwealth games. Nor did Sheffield for the world student games that were staged earlier this year.

Mr. Atkins: That is not true.

Mr. Howell: In that case, will the Minister explain what happened?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman must know that money was made available to the world student games through the Sports Council, which is a Government fund.

Mr. Howell: Yes, but we cannot maintain those great festivals with the small amount of money made available to the Sports Council for everyone. I do not regard that as the special Government funding for which the Sheffield student games and the Commonwealth games called.
May I add a word of congratulation on the outstanding success with which Sheffield staged those games, despite the fact that its ratepayers were deserted by the Government. It was the same story with the Olympic bids of Birmingham and Manchester and the first-class hosting of the International Olympic Committee conference in Birmingham this year. The Sports Council helped in all those events so far as resources allowed. However, such major international events will never take place in this country unless international sport is taken seriously and there is major Government involvement in them. The Manchester bid must involve a capital expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds—I am told £800 million or £900 million. Manchester is rate capped, so it is difficult to see how it can provide substantial funds from its own resources. As we know, the private sector is experiencing great difficulties, so it would be equally unlikely that it could finance such a vast investment at present. The same story will be repeated on the revenue consequences of providing 20 Olympic facilities if Manchester wins the bid, as we all hope.
The Government must be involved if this country is to be taken seriously. The Labour party is committed to doing so, as the Government should be if they are properly to aid Manchester's cause. The British sporting public deserves the best of world sport. We back the Football Association bid to stage the European championships and hope that they will lead to future world championships.
We want the best for the United Kingdom, both in international sport and for the enjoyment of youngsters who are being denied it at present. The motion and Labour's charter for sport set out that essential strategy, which is necessary to bring those wishes about. I commend them to the House.

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to sport in the United Kingdom in the provision of grant to the Sports Council for 1992–93 of £48·8 million, which has been increased in line with forecast inflation next year, complemented by new funds of the order of £40 million this year from the Sports and Arts Foundation and the £20 million per annum additional money from the Football Trust, and a further £0·7 million for the Champion Coaching Scheme; recognises the important decision to make physical education a mandatory subject in the National Curriculum from the start of the next academic year and the lead given by Her Majesty's Government in international matters such as drug abuse and the participation of South Africa in international

sport; and further believes that Her Majesty's Government has demonstrated its high priorities in the sporting field as opposed to the out-dated, uncosted, bureaucratic, interfering and irrelevant policies of Her Majesty's Opposition and its allies.'.
Let me get one thing straight from the beginning. Despite the whingeing generalities which we have heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), the provision and achievement of sport in this country illustrates a success story. A specific example is the fact that this morning I have been in Harrogate on the last day of the RAC Lombard rally, which is the largest spectator event in the United Kingdom and one of the largest in Europe. There were about 250,000 spectators on the first day alone, and more than a million in the course of the five days. The rally will raise substantial sums of money—many millions of pounds—for this country. It is a typical example of the many success stories.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that the RAC rally came through Sutton park in Birmingham on the first day and was watched by tens of thousands of local people who thoroughly enjoyed the event and identified closely with the cars? Will he extend his congratulations to the tenth competitor to arrive home—the first British driver —Louise Aitken Walker and her co-driver, which proves that lady drivers in the United Kingdom are tops?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has as much knowledge of such matters as anyone. He makes his point well and I am delighted to associate myself with his congratulations.
As demonstrated by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and many others of my right hon. Friends, as well as by my move to the Department of Education and Science, sport is a high priority for the Government. First, it enhances the health of the young and old. Secondly, it gives a sense of achievement on personal, regional, national and international bases. It also provides great relaxation and recreation.
Sport needs money. It requires action to be taken in education and the structure to be examined. Above all, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath concluded in his lengthy speech, it needs action on the international front.
I shall shorten my remarks to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak because much time has been taken up. I shall deal with the points in the order in which they were raised by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. First, he raised the question of money. Direct central Government finance for sport is channelled through the sports councils. I am responsible for the Sports Council for Great Britain which, through grant aid, assists in the provision of sports facilities at local, regional and national levels.
To enable the Sports Council for Great Britain to carry out its important tasks, its grant in aid has been increased in real terms by just less than 30 per cent. when 1979–80 is compared with the grant recently announced for 1992–93 of some £48·8 million. Contrary to recent press reports, the latest grant has increased in line with forecast inflation and will enable the Sports Council to maintain its existing programmes. Funding for the three other sports councils has increased in real terms between 1979–80 and 1991–92 by 25 per cent.
I cannot mention funds without talking about the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Opposition Members


mock that foundation but it provides a substantial new tranche of money for sport that was not previously available.

Mr. Denis Howell: Before the Minister discusses the foundation, will he confide to the House why the grant aid increase for sport differed so dramatically from the grant aid increase for the arts?

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Minister for the Arts if he wants to know why the arts provision has been increased. The sports increase was in line with inflation and we have provided other funds which I am discussing now. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he wants more money for sport or he does not. In addition to the year-on-year increase to the Sports Council, we are providing a further £40 million or thereabouts to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to that?

Mr. Howell: No, but I am well aware that when the scheme was announced the Minister said that it would be funded with new money and should not be regarded as coming within the Sports Council's estimate. The Minister has departed from that and is now telling us that he is no good at fighting the battle for sport with the Treasury and that his colleague, the Minister for the Arts, is about 10 times more successful.

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong; he ignores the money that has been made available. Additional funds well in excess of inflation have been provided for grants to the Sports Council. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He made a lengthy speech complaining about the size of funds available for sport. I am now telling him that we provide a jolly sight more money than the Labour Government did when he was a Minister, and he should recognise that.
New funds of £40 million have been provided for sport in addition to that already available. As my hon. Friends know full well, a number of grant aids have already been made from the Sports and Arts Foundation. There are small ones such as the Corah bowling club in Leicester and the Ideas factory in Stockport and, at national level, the Sports Aid Foundation and the National Coaching Foundation, which have received substantial amounts of money. In addition, a grant is being made available to help prepare our athletes for the Olympics in Barcelona.
I was also able to find £700,000 at the start of this year, through the Sports Council, to give to the National Coaching Foundation to set up the champion coaching scheme. Since I last mentioned that scheme in our debate on sport and recreation in May, it has gone from strength to strength. It has proved so attractive that more than 6,000 children now participate in it in 24 regions in England in 11 different sports. That was originally a pilot scheme, when we expected that about 3,600 children would participate, but the demand for it has been so strong that that number has already risen to 6,000.
The reports that I am receiving, not only through my visits to a number of such schemes, but from the director-general of the National Coaching Foundation and others involved at local and regional level, are that the

project is going wonderfully well, and they hope that it will be expanded. I have hopes for that in future years. I am most impressed by the enthusiasm and dedication of the youngsters, coaches and, above all, the parents who have become involved in activities such as transporting the children.
In addition to that £700,000 I was able to find a further £300,000 as a direct result of my move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science—which makes a total of £1 million —[Laughter.] Opposition Members may scoff but those who received the £300,000—people with disabilities—were delighted that we had been able to find that extra money. It demonstrated that the Government believe that integration of disabled sport into able-bodied sport is important, even if Opposition Members do not.
There has been some good news in relation to sports sponsorship. The Government have been keen to encourage partnership with the private sector in sports sponsorship. Sport in the United Kingdom is benefiting from more than £200 million a year of funding from its sponsors. Despite rumours to the contrary from Opposition Members, the figures that I have seen for the first half of this year are extremely encouraging and show more than 450 new and extended sponsorships and a net gain of £11 million. That flies in the face of the doom and gloom that we hear from the Opposition.
I am anxious for more sponsorship of sports events at grass roots, to encourage greater participation by the community in taking full advantage of the opportunities. The Institute of Sports Sponsorship recently made proposals to me for a new sponsorship incentive scheme similar to that run so successfully for the arts, but targeted at the grass roots level. I am giving those proposals extremely serious consideration.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no objection to sports sponsorship by tobacco companies, and are expressing concern at the new European Community directive that tries to ban tobacco advertising in sports grounds? Will he explain where the Government stand on that issue?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has raised an issue dealt with in my very next line—tobacco sponsorship. The Government attach importance to the need for people to be aware of the risk of smoking. However, they also believe that sport should be able to benefit from legitimate tobacco sponsorship, provided that it is subject to proper control.
The latest figures show that £7·2 million was made available to sport through sponsorship by the tobacco industry. The sponsorship covered major national events in a wide variety of sports including cricket, rugby league, motor racing, horse racing, golf and darts. We believe that the current voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry provides proper control.
I do not take too kindly to the Commission suggesting in a directive that there should be a ban on tobacco sponsorship when it spends about four times the amount of money on subsidies to Greek tobacco owners to produce more tobacco. The Commission should examine its own house before it starts telling us what to do. There is a possibility that if tobacco sponsorship were forbidden, alcohol sponsorship might take its place. It provides substantial sponsorship of about £30 million.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Tobacco kills—so does alcohol.

Mr. Atkins: Of course it kills. But I have enough respect for the British public to believe that they can make up their own minds about which events they want to see. All the evidence suggests that in ever larger numbers the British public are prepared to watch events sponsored by the tobacco industry. It seems that they feel as strongly about the issue as anyone else. No one is arguing about health, but we are talking about the freedom of legitimate companies and governing bodies to sell sponsorship properly. Therefore, my direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is that I shall continue to resist the directive, as will the Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I appreciate the Minister's point about sports income from such advertising, but are there any figures on the cost to the national health service of chest illnesses arising from smoking? That figure must he far in excess of the income received from tobacco advertising.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not get drawn into the issue of what the Exchequer raises in tobacco tax or what the health costs are, because I genuinely do not know. My responsibility is for the sponsorship of sport by the tobacco industry, which involves a substantial amount of money—about £7·2 million. If other sponsorship were available, that might make a difference, but it is not. Therefore, the substantial loss to sport were tobacco sponsorship to be removed would be detrimental to the future of major national events. I prefer to leave it to the British public to decide what they want to do.
Important improvements to safety and comfort at football grounds have been made. In particular, all-seat accommodation, has been achieved by the additional £20 million a year released to the Football Trust following the reduction of 2·5 per cent. in pool betting duty in last year's Budget. The Government have provided £100 million over five years, initially by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister. Those higher standards of provision should assist in the continuing improvement in spectator behaviour that enabled our clubs to return to European competitions so successfully last season.
I have also supported any moves to bring together the Football Association, the Football League, the Professional Footballers Association and, where appropriate, the supporters, so that an agreed agenda for the development of the game can be established. From what the right hon. Member for Small Heath said, I suspect that there is not much disagreement between us on that. We all recognise that there is a need for football to move forward and to consider its future structure. That requires the necessary leadership to seize the opportunities for the benefit of the game as a whole.
I have also consistently emphasised how important it is for football clubs to enter into partnership with local authorities, the private sector, other sports organisations and possibly local employers, and to devise some imaginative schemes for football grounds. I should like more thought to be given to exploring the full sports and leisure potential of the new and refurbished football stadia

of the future. It is essential to get away from the notion that football grounds are used solely for football once or twice a week.

Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as I had to leave to take a phone call when he was speaking earlier.
As regards multipurpose stadia, if the Scottish Football Association—which is considering various options including the renovation of Hampden park—concluded that it wished to support a private sector-led, multipurpose national sports and football stadium, perhaps led by major private companies, would the Government view that sympathetically? Would they give the association initial support? I do not ask the Minister to give a figure, but would the Government make some capital input to what would be a much-used, new national stadium that would be economically self-sufficient thereafter?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman poses an interesting question. As a Scot, he will appreciate that I would have to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport in Scotland because his version of a national stadium for Scotland would not be for me to consider initially. That Minister cannot be here for the whole of the debate, but I am sure that he will read the report of the debate and may wish to talk to the hon. Gentleman. As I say, it is not directly an issue for the English Minister for Sport and I prefer not to be drawn on the matter.
The sheer scale of local authority provision for sport and active recreation over the past 10 years is sometimes overlooked by Opposition Members. Local authorities are required to supply revenue and capital expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment each year. Defining sport and active recreation as closely as we can from returns, gross expenditure in England and Wales rose from some £333 million in 1979–80 to some £1·028 billion in 1989–90, the year for which we have the most recent data. That represents an increase in real terms of more than 50 per cent. over the 10-year period.
Gross capital outturn expenditure by local authorities on sport and active recreation in England increased from £184 million in 1987–88 to £335 million in 1989–90, an increase in real terms of nearly 70 per cent.
As a result of these real increases in both revenue and capital expenditure by local authorities, with assistance from the Sports Council, we have seen a significant growth in the number and range of local sport and active recreation facilities provided. According to Sports Council figures, the number of sports halls and leisure centres in England has increased from under 800 in 1981 to about 1,500 by the end of last year. In 1990–91, 53 sports halls were completed and a further 45 were under construction.
Contrary to the impression which Opposition Members and especially the right hon. Member for Small Heath would like to give, there has not been a decline in the number of public swimming pools. The number of conventional swimming pools in England increased to approximately 1,140 by the end of 1990–91 and, in addition, there were about 150 leisure pools. That compares with 1,000 swimming pools in the early 1980s. There were also 272 artificial turf pitches in England by the end of 1990–91, of which 55 were completed and a further 18 were under construction. Those figures are equally impressive.
Furthermore, this activity by local authorities and the Sports Council contributed to the large increase in participation levels during the 1980s. Between 1977 and 1987—the period for which we have most comprehensive statistics—the percentage of the adult population regularly taking part in sport and physical exercise rose from 45·3 per cent. to 56·6 per cent.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath spoke about the planning policy guidance note. I am delighted with the reception that it has received since I investigated it when I was in the Department of the Environment wearing my other hat as Minister responsible for planning. Obviously, I have watched its progress since I transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science. It has been well received by all those involved in sports provision as giving an essential framework for the planning of sports provision. It provides constructive advice on planning sport and recreation development in a wide range of areas, and advice on how to handle some of the more difficult planning issues that can arise in particular sports.
The guidance note also makes clear that local authorities should ensure that the existing stock of playing fields and open space available for sport and recreation is not depleted without taking into account the long-term needs of the community for recreation or amenity open space. It makes quite clear to local authorities that playing fields should normally be protected, and that local plans should include a statement of the extent of the community's requirements for sports pitches and policies on the protection of playing fields. They should also take account of the register of recreational land that is being prepared by the Sports Council as a result of the £500,000 that I made available at the beginning of the year.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Playing fields that are available to the public either through a local authority or under the terms of a trust should surely be available to local schools to use for proper recreational purposes. The Minister knows that adjacent to the city technology college in my constituency there is a large playing field owned by the Hustler trust which is administered by the Labour controlled Cleveland county council. Since the city technology college was established, the use of that field, which was previously available to the school, has been denied. Is not that a fine example of how Labour's fine words in the motion are belied by its actions on the ground?

Mr. Atkins: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. It reminds me of an incident in Cleveland concerning a boy who was fortunate enough to be able to play football for Middlesbrough Town. He played until he was unfortunate enough, in the context of a Labour controlled council, to gain a place at Cleveland CTC. As a result he was prevented from playing the game that he loved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and my late hon. Friend Richard Holt made it quite clear that they would continue to be associated with our campaign against that vindictive decision for as long as was needed. I am glad to be able to confirm that at long last Cleveland school sport council has decided to allow Cleveland CTC to take part in school events, thereby allowing my hon. Friend's young constituent to

participate. That has happened thanks to my hon. Friend and the late Richard Holt. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his achievement.

Mr. Devlin: I apologise for again interrupting my hon. Friend during his speech. Although we are pleased that Macmillan college is now allowed to play against other schools, a rearguard action is being fought by a small group of teachers in the county who say that they will not administer games between the CTC and other schools. That is totally disgraceful, given that the majority of those who took part in the meeting of the school sport council decided not to allow this ridiculous and vindictive ban to continue.

Mr. Atkins: That is an action by the party which is supposed to be greatly in favour of sport. It makes one wonder.

Mr. Denis Howell: I share the concern. The Minister made it clear that the reversal was decided by Cleveland school sport council and not the local authority. As he has said, it was not the responsibility of the local authority but that of the local sports council.

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that local sports council is funded by Cleveland council.

Mr. Howell: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I should like to get on with my speech. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for an hour.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister should withdraw that. Is he saying that every time a local authority or the Government fund a voluntary body they are responsible for the policies of that body? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman cannot slip and slide away from the actions of his party in Cleveland. It made a vindictive decision to prevent a young boy from playing football. As a result of the pressure exerted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and the late Richard Holt, that decision has been reversed. That is why the Opposition are shouting. They know that they got it wrong and that at long last my hon. Friend has put matters right.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: I should prefer the hon. Gentleman to allow me to make progress. However, I shall give way.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister take this opportunity to be even-handed by condemning private fee-paying schools that ban football?

Mr. Atkins: I am not aware of any private fee-paying schools that ban football.

Mr. Canavan: Association football.

Mr. Atkins: We are being drawn down a cul-de-sac. If the hon. Gentleman has a case that he would like to raise with the Minister who has responsibility for sport in Scotland, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be delighted to receive it.
I shall now deal with sport for young people as it relates to our education service. Crucial to encouraging greater participation in sport and the increased use of sports facilities is the attitude of young people to sport. That is


why introducing school children to the practice of sport and physical recreation is one of the Government's key priorities. Teachers clearly have an essential role, which the Government fully recognise, both in developing sporting skills within physical education as part of the curriculum and in providing a range of extra-curricular sporting opportunities.
The importance of PE in schools is reflected in the important decision taken by the Government to include for the first time as a foundation subject physical education for all pupils from age five up to 16 in maintained schools in England and Wales. The Labour party was not prepared to do that when it was in office. That is another key mandatory requirement which was part of the physical education working party's recommendations and one that we were delighted to agree with.
The working group's final report was published in the summer along with the proposals for physical education in the national curriculum by the Secretaries of State. I congratulate the working group, under the chairmanship of Ian Beer, a former headmaster of Harrow school. All the members of the working group contributed greatly to a cogent and well-argued report, and one that we largely accepted. Most of all, it said that competitive games were an essential part of a programme of physical education. I, and I am sure all my hon. Friends, heartily endorse that view. Given my love of cricket and rugby union, I doubt that anyone would be surprised by that.
I am concerned, as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Small Heath and others are, about the problem of the scheduling of organised team games within the curriculum. This problem is made all the more difficult at the end of a summer term, which seems to be getting earlier and earlier, when exams impede the adequate provision of summer team games. I have drawn this problem to the attention of the independent School Examinations and Assessment Council and I hope that it will recognise that this is a concern of all hon. Members and react accordingly to it.
The working group stressed the importance of partnerships in sport and made some particularly helpful suggestions. In view of what the right hon. Member for Small Heath said earlier, I should record my appreciation of, and support for, physical education teachers, and their status. I understand the need for there to be more of them and for them to be better appreciated. I am keen that the head of PE in every school, whether male or female, should be part of the head teachers' management body and play an important role in the day-to-day running of physical education in schools. I am also pleased to add my support for, and gratitude to, the many part-time teachers or teachers who, in a part-time capacity, act after school in coaching youngsters at all levels. That is another success story that the Labour party is ignoring.
Consideration is being given to how best to ensure that teachers can be properly trained to teach all the core and foundation subjects in the national curriculum, including PE. Recruitment to teacher training has increased steadily and stands at the highest level in recent years. The Department's projections suggest a plentiful supply of PE teachers for secondary schools in the 1990s. Recruitment to secondary initial teacher training courses in 1991 was 1,130, exceeding the allocation of funded places of 750 by 50 per cent.
Another important aspect of the PE working group's report is school swimming. The PE working group's

proposals envisage a requirement that all pupils be taught to swim by age 11 and the Government have accepted, in principle, this recommendation. We share the view of the physical education working group and of the "Swim for Life" campaign that swimming is a vital, life-saving skill. My Department is carrying out a survey to assess the feasibility and cost of the proposed requirement and to calculate when it should be introduced in schools. The survey will be completed by the end of this year and cover access to swimming pools, the average cost of building suitable primary school pools and the average cost of teaching a child a swim. The initial sample survey carried out by the PE working group showed that already 85 per cent. of the primary schools surveyed already provide swimming as part of their curriculum.
The House will be fully aware that one of the aspects of sport dear to my heart, and I suspect, given his former incarnation as a referee, to the heart of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, is fair play. I feel strongly as a parent that if youngsters lose the feeling of fairness and understanding of fair play at a young age, they are unlikely to regain it when they grow up. When I came to this job, I made it clear publicly that one of my aims was to do something about paying some attention to that.
I am delighted that, on the occasions when I have raised this matter, both in the House and around organisations the length and breadth of the country, it seems to have struck a chord with parents and governing bodies alike. I am delighted that the Sports Council has instituted its fair play award in conjunction with BBC Radio 5 and that the Central Council of Physical Recreation has introduced its Stanley Matthews award. A variety of other organisations and people, including his royal highness the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal, have associated themselves strongly with this aspect of sport. It is one that I know that every hon. Member feels as strongly about as I do.
My next subject is dual-use and encouraging the community use of sports facilities at schools. This is a long-standing objective of the Government and much has been achieved. Local management of schools gives greater discretion to school governing bodies to determine their priorities and every incentive to make optimal use of their sports facilities, including dual-use. To encourage this further, the Department has recently published its guidance booklet, "A Sporting Double: School and Community", which has been well received.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath referred to section 42 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which we hope to be able to amend so that the problem of governors entering into joint management agreements can be addressed. I am grateful to him and to the Liberal Democrats spokesman for their offer to allow this to have all-party support when we can find a colleague to take the matter up and pursue it through the House.
Some mention has been made of the review that I inherited briefly when I moved to this job and to which I attach great importance. It examined a whole series of aspects of the Sports Council structure and related matters. I have not set a deadline on when this review will be published because I want above all to listen to what people say. As a result, I held a conference in April with a full range of organisations involved in encouraging sport for young people, and we listened to what they had to say. They included youth clubs, governing bodies and groups from education. It was extremely well received and they


told me that they had never had this opportunity before. As a result of those discussions, we shall be taking action and reporting soon.
The concept of partnership, which was fundamental to all this, embraces the idea of young people, their parents, schools, communities and businesses working together. The focus of activity is young people. I have made it clear at international level what I have set out to do and the Government, through the Prime Minister, have done much the same. We have the great objective of trying to improve and build upon the Government's commitment to international support at a variety of levels. Here, I pick out particularly—I suspect that the House will agree with me —the subject of South Africa.
The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the amount of work that he has done in encouraging the involvement of South Africa in international sport. Particularly dear to my heart is the fact that cricket has led the way. I pay special tribute to Colin Cowdrey who, as chairman of the International Cricket Council, has done an enormous amount of work travelling the world trying to ensure that the changes in South Africa—albeit not as great as we would wish, but a step in the right direction—have allowed cricket and a variety of other sports to become active internationally again. How good it was the other day to see South Africa playing in India and I hope that this will go from strength to strength. We all welcome that and I hope that all sports in South Africa, as they merge and their organisations become one, will be able to play a greater part.
Another subject of great concern to us is doping and drugs—one of the main threats to international sport. The Government have been active in countering the threat through international action. They have played a leading role in the preparation and monitoring of the Council of Europe's anti-doping convention, which came into force in 1990. We have also signed a trilateral anti-doping agreement with the Governments of Australia and Canada.
Domestically, the Government have fought the doping threat through the creation of the Sports Council's independent drug testing regime in 1988 and through enhanced measures, announced earlier this year, to tackle the use of anabolic steroids, including the creation of a new criminal offence of providing steroids to a minor. The fact that only 45 illegal substances were detected out of nearly 4,000 tests conducted by the Sports Council in 1991 bears testament to the success of these policies.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My hon. Friend will know of my long-term interest in this subject. I urge him to use his influence and his new position within the Department of Education to extend education on the dangers of drugs in sport to young people as they first become involved in sport. Will he say something about that?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that topic about which he feels strongly and which we can do more to encourage. The need to make youngsters appreciate early on the devastating effect of drugs is not confined to the world of sport alone but applies to a wide variety of other aspects of life. From that point of view, I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention.
I am conscious of the time. I have not yet spoken for as long as the right hon. Member for Small Heath. I have only a page and a half of my brief left, but he raised a number of topics and I have tried to answer them.

Sir John Farr: So far, my hon. Friend has not mentioned shooting, which is probably Britain's biggest participator sport with about 2·5 million active participants. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government fully support shooting in all its forms? In addition, he may care to comment on the Labour party's proposal to limit one legally held gun of any type to any one person.

Mr. Atkins: An hon. Friend once told me that there are only three sports, hunting, shooting and fishing; all the rest are merely active recreation. My hon. Friend is an expert in shooting and I defer to him. I enjoy a shoot and, judging by the majority of people who do the same, I am not alone. I should be interested to know what the Opposition think about the matter. They appear to be in favour of angling, but against shooting.

Mr. Denis Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that. We may hear more about that in due course.
The Manchester Olympic bid concerns a number of hon. Members, not least me as a north-west Member. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Manchester Olympic bid committee. They have already been to see the Prime Minister who has expressed keen interest and support and has asked them to consider a number of suggestions. They have gone away to do so and will in due course come back with some ideas which will be considered by the Government. Therefore, it is unfair for the right hon. Member for Small Heath to say that we are not supporting the Manchester bid. We have not yet made a decision. We are waiting for the Manchester Olympic bid committee to put a detailed case to us.

Mr. Denis Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are waiting for the committee to put a detailed case to us which we shall convey to the Prime Minister and then the matter will be considered. No decision in any way, shape or form has yet been made.

Mr. Howell: If that means that the Government might well give some substantial assistance to Manchester, I would welcome it. But the previous Prime Minister and, in the early days of his premiership, the present Prime Minister made it clear that they would support the Manchester bid only if it was a completely private sector bid. However, if the Government are now changing their stance on that, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome it.

Mr. Atkins: I am not making any change; I am merely saying that no decision have yet been made because we are awaiting the bid from Manchester.
I make no apologies for answering the right hon. Gentleman's points. After all, this is an Opposition day debate. The Opposition have raised the subject and I have tried to answer their points. Before I sit down I want to address myself briefly to the Opposition.
The Opposition have made great play of "Charter for Sport". The Liberals have not published any such document so we have no idea what their policy is on sport. However, no doubt we shall hear in due course. But the Labour's policy for sport is filled with contradiction. For example, when the right hon. Member for Small Heath announced "Charter for Sport" he said that he wanted, among other things, to rejuvenate and reorganise the Sports Council through much more ministerial involvement to offer the leadership so badly needed. But it says in "Charter for Sport" that the Labour party wants to avoid political bias. I should like to know how Ministers can be more involved in running sport without political bias.

Mr. David Evans: Has the Labour party costed its proposals in "Charter for Sport"?

Mr. Atkins: I was about to come to the costing of the Labour party's policy. We have heard much about international events hut we have not heard where the money for them will be found. We have heard about mandatory rate relief, for which money will have to be found. We have heard about payment for teachers after hours, for which money will have to be found. We have heard about tax exemptions and reviews, for which money will have to be found. I can do no more than quote the right hon. Member for Small Heath when he announced the charter. He said:
A Labour Chancellor cannot provide us with the resources we want.
I bet he cannot. Is this spending a high priority, an important priority or just a priority, or will it not happen at all? We need to know where that money is coming from.
If nothing else, the Labour party has been guilty of inaction. There was some criticism some time ago that I was not answering questions in the House as the Minister for Sport. I did a spot of research and discovered that of all the questions asked only 33 had come from the Opposition, less than 50 per cent., and none had come from the right hon. Member for Small Heath. The only debates on the subject have been initiated by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Perhaps he, rather than the right hon. Gentleman, should be on the Opposition Front Bench. There is a gentleman who knows a little bit about sport and is active in it. I should like to know who is speaking for the Opposition in that regard.
We heard earlier about the blind prejudice from Cleveland. But. above all, this document, which is outdated and irrelevant as the amendment says, is guilty of no more or less than plagiarism. It contains a number of ideas which it claims to be new. On page 9 it says:
We will secure a prominent and appropriate place for sport and physical education within the school curriculum".
I have just said that we have made physical education compulsory up to the age of 16.
On page 11 it says:
Football spectators have suffered more than others. Urgent action is needed to improve the quality of our football grounds.
That will cost £20 million a year for five years.
That is more plagiarism of our ideas. So it goes on. On page 14 it says:
we will welcome the return of South Africa to international sport".
The Government have done it already. We have taken the lead. Wherever one turns, whatever we do, it is the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, who have given sport a high priority. Opposition Members

Make a great deal of noise, but when it comes down to it their ideas are out of date, irrelevant and uncosted. Everyone knows that they do not know what sport is all about.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the House that there is only a little over an hour left. As many hon. Members wish to take part, I appeal for brief speeches.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I am grateful to be able to speak from any Bench in this debate. It is good that the Opposition have once more been able to bring the Minister kicking and screaming to the Dispatch Box. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has provided with his usual aplomb the reasons why most people regard him as the best Minister for Sport that Britain has ever produced. However, having paid him that compliment, I should say that he was a little over-generous in giving way to so many Conservative Members. He must know by now that most of their interventions are rather spurious.
This is the fourth time since last December that the Minister has had a chance to speak in a debate on sport, and each time it has been the Labour party which has brought him to the Dispatch Box. I am not telling the Minister anything that he does not already know, but he must be aware that the Labour party is the only party that gives him the opportunity to offer his responses, however inadequate, to the challenges facing sport throughout 1991, the year of sport.
I should have thought that the Minister might care to reflect on the failure of his team mates to offer him any similar chances to speak in the House. Recognising the number of people who want to speak in the debate, he might lean on the Government Whips to ensure that we have a full day's debate in Government time so that we can debate these issues fairly and squarely. Unfortunately, the Minister is not the only person who is unwilling to arrange that.
Astoundingly, it has been claimed in recent Tory party press releases, and by the Minister in a recent seminar at the Institute of Sports Sponsorship—and elsewhere—that Labour's interest in sport is new found. The Minister has said that Labour Members rarely raise the subject in Parliament. When I heard those claims, I thought that the Minister must be suffering from a memory lapse. I distinctly remember debating sport with him on a number of occasions, as do my hon. Friends. On 20 December last year, we debated the problems facing football; on 28 February, we debated sport in schools; on 23 May, we debated sport and recreation. All those debates were initiated by the Opposition.

Mr. Atkins: rose—

Mr. Pendry: I will not give way now. I will invite the Minister to intervene later, but I want to give as many hon. Members as possible an opportunity to speak.
I gave the Minister a gentle prod. Nearly three weeks ago, I wrote to remind him of the occasions on which we had been sparring partners, and pointed out that the Government had not initiated a single debate on sport


since December 1990. I asked him to withdraw his comments. Amazingly, I have not received so much as an acknowledgment, let alone a retraction.
As the Minister knows, I am a forgiving man, and I am prepared to overlook his laxity. Would he like to intervene now, and tell us whether the Government have initiated a single debate on this subject during the Year of Sport?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I exempted him specifically; I said that he was the only Opposition Member who initiated debates and asked questions. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has not asked a single question, or initiated a single debate, until today.

Mr. Pendry: That is not true, and the Minister knows it. Moreover, he has carefully avoided my main charge —that the Government have no interest in sport and do not wish to debate it.
Given the Minister's current relations with the British sporting world, he needs all the favours that he can get. He must feel particularly uncomfortable in sporting circles nowadays—especially in the light of the Government's decision to cut the Sports Council's grant again, which they repeatedly deny having made: they do so again in the amendment to our motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, quoting the chairman of the Sports Council, rightly described that decision as a kick in the teeth.
Fifteen days ago, I called the Minister to account for that shameful act. I reminded him of the swingeing cuts —amounting, in real terms, to nearly £60 million—that the Government had made between 1986–87 and 1991–92 in funding to sport through grants to the sports councils and support for sport through the urban aid programme. Instead of coming clean, and honestly admitting to the House that the state of affairs was disgraceful, the Minister sought to hide the truth. He gave details of the funds that were going to British sport from sources that have precious little to do with the Government's spending.
The Minister told the House:
the Government can lay claim to spending more money on sport than any party has done for many years.
That is not true, and he knows it. He has a clear duty to halt the shabby deception of the House that has been perpetuated by the Government's amendment, and confirm that the Government have slashed funds for sport over the past five years.
The Minister, of course, has the reputation of being less than a financial wizard. Since April, he has wasted six months in trying to claim that the Sports and Arts Foundation would be given £75 million. Along with others, I have pointed out in three separate debates, and in letters, that his estimate was £15 million short. He was finally forced to admit his error in a written answer on 22 October. It is no use the Minister shaking his head, unless he did not write the answer himself. Tonight's amendment shows the same miscalculation.
When I challenged him 15 days ago, the Minister attempted to answer the worry expressed about the cuts by the chairman of the Sports Council:
the increase in grant to the Sports Council is 4·4 per cent., which is more than the rate of inflation … I spoke to the chairman of the Sports Council this morning and pointed out

that the increase in grant is in excess of inflation. Therefore, his comment was wrong."—[Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol 198, c. 886.]
It is clear that the Minister has now been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that claim was inaccurate. According to the autumn statement, the increase in grant to the Sports Council in 1992 will fail to keep pace with inflation for that year; the chairman of the Sports Council was right. Even the Government's amendment has back-tracked on what the Minister previously said. A fortnight ago, he told the House that the grant would be in excess of inflation; the amendment says that it will be "in line" with inflation. The truth is that it will fail to match inflation.
The Minister must publicly apologise, both to the House and to the chairman of the Sports Council. My hon. Friends and I look forward to that—although we hope that he will not do it tonight, as that would take up still more of the House's time. It does him no good at all to waste everyone's time in covering up the Government's failings. He must use his energies more usefully by presenting a positive strategy for British sport.
As the Minister has said, there are promising signs in the sporting world, but that is no thanks to the Government. The newly established British Sports Forum at last unites the United Kingdom's major nongovernmental sports organisations in a single body, and I hope that the Minister's review, whenever it appears, will fully endorse that initiative.
At a recent conference of the General Association of International Sports Federations in Sydney, several members of the International Olympic Committee and other delegates were heard to praise Britain for its historical contribution to world sport, but added that they could not vote for a Manchester bid unless Britain's national sports bodies spoke with a united voice. The establishment of the British Sports Forum is excellent news, but it is vital that the Government play a central role in creating the right climate for it to operate effectively.
Some people involved in sport must now be choking on their description of the Minister's arrival at the Department of Education and Science—together with the transfer of the present Prime Minister from No. 11 Downing street to No. 10—as a dream ticket for sport. Some dream—it has turned into a nightmare for many people in the world of sport. We need only point to the Minister's abject failure to produce his review of Government sports policy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath pointed out in his comprehensive speech, the review has been in the offing for four years.
On 5 February, in a parliamentary written answer, the Minister told me that the review would be published in the summer. Both his inaccuracy in predicting matches and his statistical ineptitude have been clearly demonstrated tonight. We are nearing the end of the Year of Sport, and we are still none the wiser about the Government's proposals. That may not be strictly true; we have heard the next Government's proposals. They are contained in our charter for sport, which sets out a positive vision of what sport is, and what it can become, given the right backing from Government. A Labour Government will provide that backing.
Ours is an enabling ethos. The Minister resorted in desperation to well-worn scare stories about interfering Governments, as he has done before; but even he must know that our charter promises an environment that will


enable sportsmen and women to find their own level. That is why we shall involve spectators and participants in the decision-making process. That is why we shall provide more physical education teachers and establish a comprehensive national system of sports development officers to help everyone, from children to grandparents, to gain the opportunity to enjoy sport and leisure for themselves.
We have given unequivocal backing to teaching children to swim by the age of 11. We are happy that the Minister went along with that tonight, but it has taken him a long time to reach that conclusion. We expect him not just to wait for the survey to be completed but to recognise that in some areas he can act now, without resource implications. I have asked him repeatedly to carry out a survey of the lack of provision. Eventually—many months later—he agreed to do so. We are grateful, but it was rather late.
The encouragement and the backing of sport are the watchwords of our charter. That is why it has been greeted so positively in sporting circles. The Minister will have seen the reaction of the sports world to our proposals. It has been enthusiastic and welcoming.
The reason for that universal welcome among sports experts is that they know that, when Labour says that it will revitalise British sport, it means what it says. Unlike the Government, we have a record and a pedigree to back up our words. It is small wonder that the Minister is unwilling to unveil his product. He must know that it represents not so much his opus magnum as his epitaph. We provided the Minister with a platform to dispute that tonight and to enlighten us, but he failed to take advantage of that opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath said with great clarity that, when we are returned to office, we shall be pioneering once more and give sport the lead that it so desperately needs.
Will the Minister match our commitment to introduce mandatory rating relief for all voluntary sports clubs? He has already said that he will not do so, which is disgraceful. It has already been introduced in Northern Ireland and has been very useful. Unfortunately, the Minister's praise for discretionary rate relief, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), suggests that he does not share our enthusiasm for mandatory rate relief. His view on that occasion was, in part, due to the results of a survey carried out by his colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office.
I wonder whether they provided the Minister with only half the story, as happened in the case of their written answer to me on 5 November. On that occasion, they told me about the total number of sports clubs that received rate relief in 1991, but what they refused to tell me—despite an explicit request in my written question, although I have since discovered the answer as a result of pressing other Departments—is that the survey showed that 1,136 voluntary sports clubs applied for rate relief in 1991 under the present system but were turned down.
What does the Minister have to say to those 1,136 sports clubs that were denied those vital financial resources? Does he think that discretionary rate relief has worked well for them? Can he explain why those applications were turned down? Did his Department keep him in the dark?
I hope that the Minister will tell the House what he plans to do to back Britain's attempts to bring international sporting events to Britain. If the

Government's treatment of the world student games is anything to go by, the answer is precious little. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can enlarge on that point.
A sports-loving Government would be a driving force for sport. They would not cower in the stands, refusing to participate. The Prime Minister gave a cricket bat to President Bush at Kennebunkport. To do that is one thing; to come up with the goods for sport in this country is quite another.
In reality, as the whole of the sports world knows, Tory Governments have always trailed badly behind Labour Governments when it comes to sport. As the record shows, despite the Minister's fantasy allegations, it has always been the Labour party that has led the sporting pack. In the 1960s, it was a Labour Government who created the Sports Council and gave Britain its first Minister for Sport. In the 1970s, it was a Labour Government who led the way for British sport in Europe and who negotiated and signed the European sport-for-all charter.
Within the world community, by signing the Gleneagles agreement, a Labour Government established the boycott of sporting links with South Africa, on account of apartheid. [Interruption.] I am not sure that we carry the entire House with us on that. All too often, the Government have ignored the Gleneagles agreement in all but the letter of the law.
Celebrations alone are not enough. We need to improve Britain's sporting profile overseas, or we shall not maximise our potential as a host to top-class world sporting events. One step that the Government must take immediately is to put together a high-profile sports aid programme for the black townships in South Africa and for the front-line states whose sport has suffered as a result of the lack of international competition. Other European countries are doing just that. We should do it, too.
Labour has given a pledge in its charter for sport to back the international efforts of our sports stars, many of whom are our finest ambassadors. We recognise the major international role that sport plays in Britain, or could play if it was given the right backing by the Government, and we will play our full part in supporting that role. We appreciate that, by being seen to give support, Britain will make a vital contribution to Europe and international sport, as well as helping to promote a high world profile for British sport. The United Kingdom's work in the Council of Europe's committee for the development of sport and the British Olympic Committee would benefit enormously.
This year, in the Year of Sport, the launch of the Labour party's charter has shown that once again it is the Labour party in the 1990s that has the ideas, commitment, and, above all, the political will to bring a better deal for sport and secure a brighter future. The millions of sportsmen and women who are crying out for Government support know that they will not have to wait much longer for the backing that they so urgently need. After the next election, a Labour Government will put them back in the driving seat.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I do not intend to follow the tub-thumping oratory of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who


sounded as if he was making a bid for the Opposition Front Bench. After the long-winded effort that we had to listen to earlier, I am surprised that he is not already there.
I do not need to tell the House that the Lake district is one of the favourite parts of the United Kingdom for sport and recreation. The House knows that thousands of people visit the Lake district every year to enjoy its marvellous scenery, and many come to enjoy sport and recreation on the lakes. They come to swim, fish and sail and for other forms of boating.
Hundreds of visitors and many local people enjoy the sport of power-boating, particularly on Lake Windermere. There are many facilities on that lake for the increasingly popular sport of water-skiing. To my knowledge, the Windermere Motor Boat Racing club has been in existence for more than 60 years, and there is a long history of world records being achieved on the lake.
For many years, there has been a growing need to apply proper controls to power-boating. We know that power boats can be dangerous, apart from the noise element which can be unattractive and intrusive. I remember moving amendments to the Countryside Bill in 1968, which eventually led to the registration of boats on Lake Windermere and some of the spead limits that now exist.
Windermere is the only lake in the Lake district on which power boats are allowed. In 1976, there was a public inquiry and power boats were banned from the three lakes of Ullswater, Coniston and Derwentwater, apart from rare exceptions. The inspector at that inquiry said that, in view of the recreation history of Windermere, it should be regarded as a place where fast power-boating and associated water-skiing should be allowed. That is what has happened.
However, power-boating as it exists on the lake is highly unsatisfactory, and there is an urgent need for new controls. Tragically, a child was killed only a few years ago. Stupid behaviour is too common, and it results in wholly unreasonable interference with other lake users. Proper standards of insurance and competence do not exist to the extent that they should, and the noise is occasionally far too intrusive. There is also a problem of people using power boats to water-ski early in the morning. That is wholly unreasonable.
About a year ago, the Lake District special planning board worked hard to find a way of amending the rules to restore a sensible approach to power boating on Lake Windermere. But earlier this year, it dropped a bombshell. Without warning, it decided to impose a 10 mph limit on the lake, which effectively killed all power-boating sport. Members and officials of the board did not conduct an inquiry to discover how many jobs, businesses and livelihoods around the lake depended on power boating. I do not know what the figure is, but it is clear that many jobs are affected. My principal concern about the effect of the speed limit is the loss of those jobs.
The Countryside Commission endorsed the board's surprise recommendation. I believe, however, that it is not too late to save many jobs and businesses by introducing sensible new rules to ensure that Lake Windermere is big enough to accommodate those who wish to enjoy it in their various ways. I am sure that, with good will, that can be done.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that a meeting was recently held of the major bodies that oppose the 10 mph ban. They included the Royal Yachting Association, the British Water Ski Association, the Sports Council, the Standing Conference for Northern Sport and Recreation and the British Marine Industries Federation. They agreed a package to put to the Lake District planning board as an alternative to the 10 mph limit. The proposals better to control activities on the lake are based on plans that officers of the planning board were working on until the surprising vote that imposed the 10 mph limit.
The proposals that have now been agreed by lake users develop the original proposals on which the board's officers were working. For instance, they would impose zoning on the lake to confine power boating to certain areas, and would introduce measures to control noise properly. They seek to control the time when power boats can be used. I recently heard that somebody was water ski-ing at 5 o'clock in the morning and disturbing people. That was wholly unreasonable, and the package of proposals would stop that. The purpose of the package is to eliminate the cowboy element who drive power boats on the lake, and who cause most of the trouble, and to give clubs more control over such sports.
The lake users' proposals contain a most important new suggestion for two substantial improved controls for the board that did not form part of the officers' original proposals. The first is that power boat drivers towing a water skier must hold the appropriate level of the Royal Yachting Association's national power boat certificate of competence. That licence could be withdrawn from offenders. Secondly, they have proposed the imposition of a 6 mph speed limit for all powered craft, except for those driven by persons who hold the appropriate level of the Royal Yachting Association's power boat certificate of competence.
The lake users believe that those measures will provide the board with significant additional controls designed to improve safety and to eliminate from the lake what I have described as the cowboy element. I am glad that the appropriate committee of the Lake District planning board agreed at today's meeting to consider those proposals seriously, and has deferred an endorsement of the 10 mph speed limit until a future meeting of the whole of the board in January.
In the meantime, I urge the Minister to do his best to encourage a sensible compromise in this difficult matter because many jobs are at stake. I am aware that he may tell us that, as a Minister, he has a potential judicial role but I am sure that he could use his good offices in the meantime. The new rules would demand more stringent enforcement of the rules on the lake. That would have to be accepted and paid for in licence fees by those who wish to continue to use power boats on the lake. It could be expensive, but I regard that as a small price to pay for sensible controls on the lake.
I shall be glad to discuss the issues sensibly with the planning board. I know that it is keen to introduce a private Bill in the near future and I am happy to discuss that with it. However, I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to try to ensure that the people who enjoy sports are not driven from the lake by what I regard as an unreasonable d decision.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall do my best to restrict my remarks in view of the many hon. Members who wish to speak. I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) into the subject of Lakes Windermere and Ullswater or any other attractive parts of his constituency.
None of us can ignore the fact that the level of sport in schools is disappointingly low. Making physical education a compulsory part of the curriculum—although welcome —is no substitute for the opportunities previously available to school children. It is not significant or, indeed, helpful to analyse how such circumstances have occurred. It is much more profitable to consider ways of remedying a situation generally regarded as unfortunate.
If it is no longer possible through the schools to interest young people in sport to the same extent, how else can we do so? One way, which would result inevitably in a substantial increase in participation, is the use of the network of local sports clubs and governing bodies in the United Kingdom. The provision of development officers for governing bodies and the provision of development officers in local sports clubs could make a substantial contribution to the alleviation of what is generally regarded as a problem.
I pause only to say that development—a word frequently used in the context of sport and recreation—is by definition a time-consuming occupation. It requires considerable expertise and people of particular talent and ability. Merely to talk about development does not mean, of course, that development will be achieved. Nevertheless, I believe that the existing network of local sports clubs and governing bodies is the best and most immediate way to remedy the defects in young people's participation in sport.
One requirement is for sports clubs to be healthy. One way in which the Government could assist in their health would be to end what I regard as the fiscal nonsense of local sports clubs having to pay corporation tax on any interest that they might acquire by putting their funds in deposit accounts. If they were granted that benefit, they would be able to use the money much more profitably and the treasurers of local sports clubs would also be absolved of the additional burden of trying to keep proper accounts.
We want better access to facilities and the Minister was right to recognise that there is all-party agreement that section 42 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 should be modified to permit much more dual use of educational facilities. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) appointed me to the Sports Council in 1965, the first meeting to which I went was concerned with dual use of education facilities. The principal obstacle was the fact that no one was willing to pay the overtime of the janitors. I suspect that in many cases that is still an obstacle. It makes one feel somewhat discouraged that we have not been able to overcome an obstacle which, on the face of it, appears to be capable of being overcome without much difficulty.
Another element is the provision of facilities. The truth is that only the local authorities have the financial muscle to provide the large-scale facilities necessary for sport and recreation. The Minister mentioned that he had visited Harrogate. I visited it earlier this year and was taken to see two swimming pools. One had recently been built to the most modern standards. The other pool was built

approximately 20 years ago. The architecture is beginning to look dated but, more significantly, the nature of the provision made at that time is no longer appropriate to what is necessary in the 1990s. The upkeep of those premises has become a considerable drain. Many of the sports facilities that were built by local authorities in the past 20 years now desperately need replacing. Unless local authorities are given the funds or the permission to proceed to replace the facilities, we shall have a gradually depreciating stock of swimming pools, running tracks and sports halls.
One notable omission from the debate has been the fact that so many young women are lost to sport. The fallout rate between school and adulthood among the female population is much greater than among the male population. It must be an important part of Government policy to try to encourage young girls to continue with sporting and recreational activities. If the health of the nation is to be improved by sport and recreation, the health of the 52 per cent. of the nation represented by the female population is an important consideration.
We should not let this occasion pass without recognising, as has already been done to some extent, the extraordinary contribution that many schoolteachers make to sport in schools. I have fairly close links with the Scottish Schools Athletic Association. The secretary of that association is a schoolteacher and I reckon that he does 20 to 25 hours a week unpaid voluntary work to keep athletics in Scottish schools at the strength that it presently enjoys. Many people make a remarkable contribution and it is right that we should acknowledge it on occasions such as this.
It is true that the Government have funded the Sports Council for the ensuing year at the predicted rate of inflation. However, the chairman of the Sports Council was concerned that there was no opportunity for expansion. That may be why Mr. Yarranton, who could reasonably be described as being not one of nature's rebels, described what the Government had offered as a "kick in the teeth". As president of the Rugby Football Union, he may be better qualified than many to recognise a kick in the teeth. The previous Minister for the Arts was able to obtain three-year funding for the arts. Would not it be an important contribution to the development of sport in the United Kingdom to give the Sports Council a period over which it could plan its activities? I refer, of course, to the Sports Council not only in London, but in Scotland.
I look forward to the day when the Government publish their proposed legislation in relation to the protection of young people from the evils of anabolic steroids. Although the regime of testing has proved remarkably successful and effective, a whole population of people who use gymnasiums and who do not fall within that regime are undoubtedly subject to the temptation to use anabolic steroids. The Government will have to consider the need to deal with that problem in due course. All the anecdotal evidence that comes my way suggests that a considerable problem exists.
I am agnostic on the question of a national lottery. Some people in my party are enthusiastic about it, but as the whole basis of our legislation on gaming is to provide only sufficient facilities for gaming to meet an existing demand, there may be great legislative problems if in promoting a lottery there is any suggestion that interest in


gaming may be encouraged or advanced. That is a matter of principle which perhaps should be dealt with on another occasion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman managed to intervene at the beginning of the debate. Since then he must have had a pressing engagement outside. It would be unhelpful to other hon. Members if I gave way now.

Mr. Bottomley: I have been here from the beginning of the debate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to give way, I understand that, but I wish that he would not make other remarks.

Mr. Campbell: I must press on, because I want to deal with international events. By a strange stroke of good fortune, I failed by only one vote to be selected chairman of the company that ran the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. Someone up there must have had my best interests at heart.
Anyone with any connection with the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh knows that the consequences of that financial debacle will be felt in Scotland for a long time. Anyone who knows of the difficulties through which Sheffield went before it could stage the world student games knows that cities will be reluctant to apply for such events.
I welcome what I hope was an open-minded statement by the Minister about the Government's attitude to Manchester. I have nothing but the highest regard for Bob Scott and the others who support him, but how much more likely Manchester would be to win the competition to host the Olympic games if it were shown that the Government supported the bid not only psychologically and emotionally but with real and substantial financial backing.
In Great Britain enterprises such as hosting international events look realistic only if they have proper Government backing. We have no Coca-Cola company in this country, as they have in Atlanta. Unless the Government are willing to open their cheque book, I fear that such enterprises are unlikely—

Mr. Atkins: How much?

Mr. Campbell: I have not seen the most recent figures. If it cost, say, £20 million or £30 million to bring the Olympic games to Manchester, I would regard that as an investment well worth making, not only for Manchester but for the United Kingdom as a whole.
On Monday I attended a seminar organised by the Sports Council in Scotland. The Minister of State responsible for sport in Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), preceded me there and addressed the delegates. It was clear that he had not satisfied them that the Government's position on sport was as suggested in the amendment tonight.
I suspect that if the Minister attended the annual conference of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which is now taking place, he would not find that audience as receptive as his Back-Benchers have been to what he has said today. The public—the audience that the Government

should satisfy about sport—are far from satisfied. The sportsmen and sportswomen of this country look to the Government for a much better deal.

Mr. John Carlisle: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will forgive me if I do not follow him, except to inform him that I have been in Yeovil over the past two days. I suggest that he divert some of his energies there, with a view to trying to save his leader's seat, because the news that I get from that part of the world is that the Conservatives are going to regain that seat with a handsome majority.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) because, in our last debate on sport, I described his speech as valedictory. Some might say, having heard him tonight, that it was a pity that it was not, but it is nice to see him still in office.
One of the advantages of a debate such as this—and it would be churlish not to thank the Opposition for allowing us this debate—is that it enables us to see the prospective candidates for the Front Bench sitting like vultures behind the right hon. Gentleman waiting their turn. Inevitably, they are led by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who has been a long-term tryer in the field along with a number of other hon. Members with familiar faces. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), who is coming up fast on the rails and who may pre-empt them when the time comes, is missing. I should add that, when the time comes, the Labour party will not be in government but will again be in opposition.
Conservative Members rather resent the Opposition's pious attitude, based on the assumption that sport is their subject and that the Conservative party is not concerned with it. We have had five excellent Ministers in 12 years. The reason for that is that they have all put such energy into their task and have initiated so many varied policies that, from sheer exhaustion, they were bound to be moved on.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the present Minister for Sport, who has brought a freshness to the post and who has tremendous support throughout the sporting world. It is a blatant untruth to say that my hon. Friend does not have that support and that he is not welcome wherever he goes in pursuit of the excellent work that he is doing. The fact that we now have a Prime Minister who is passionately interested in sport, as he showed in his generosity to it as Chancellor of the Exchequer, has reinforced the view that the Government consider sport a high priority and will continue to do so after they are returned to office at the next general election.
Much has rightly been made of the somewhat hollow document produced by the Labour party some years ago. I have obtained a copy of Labour's "Charter for Sport", signed by someone who claims to be one of the authors —although that claim has not been confirmed by the other authors. That pretty document contains many expansive words. It is peppered with such phrases as "new energy", "new ideas", "promoting excellence" and "promoting achievement", and all of us would support those aims. But, typically for a Labour party policy document, it is long on rhetoric but contains very few new ideas. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the majority of the thrust of


the document has already been adopted by the Government anyway, so there is nothing really fresh about the rather hollow words contained in it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said in a succinct intervention, what the document omits is any form of costing. We do not know the shadow Chancellor's view of it, because he has not commented on it. Full as the document is of flannel, it is basically a blank cheque for sport. The right hon. Member for Small Heath and his hon. Friends have given us no indication this evening of costing. Most people who understand sport and take an interest in it will realise that the expense that the document implies is substantial. We have no guarantee—certainly the right hon. Gentleman has given us none—that a future Labour Chancellor could fund all these grand ideas.
My main argument with the document is that it is a document for administrators and bureaucrats rather than participants and players. It talks about the appointment of more sports development officers and about greater local council involvement. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath had something to do with the document, it is inevitably rather wordy, but its general tone is a scream for expenditure and interference by the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to say that, even when he introduced the document, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see more ministerial influence.
The Opposition talk rather grandly about Government support for major sports, but the reason that sport in this country has been so successful in the past few years is that the various sports have learned to live on their own, to find their own resources and to use the money that is available to them from the taxpayer to the best advantage. I fear that, if the Labour party ever came to power and that Government money became available, such initiatives would fade away. That is why the document has rightly been dismissed by those who understand sport and who are perhaps looking to the Labour party for something more than simply empty rhetoric and borrowed phrases.
I should now like to touch briefly on two items of policy, both of which are dealt with in the document and motion. The first relates to playing fields. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that he had published a directive, which has been reinforced, stating that schools and education authorities should seriously consider disposing of school playing fields according to the needs of the area. I was delighted when he initiated the register of school playing fields because, as hon. Members will remember, I sought to introduce a Bill to that effect many years ago. but it did not find any favour then.
We must know how many school playing fields we have and whether they are available. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend and the Government to bend over backwards to persuade the local authorities to preserve the playing fields. The empty rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who avoided the point about instructions to Labour councils, must be noted. He must know that, in Nottingham, school playing fields have been sold in direct opposition to the views of the local electorate. On the whole, such things have happened where Labour authorities have not followed that dictum or taken the Department's circular No. 909 to heart. At least there seems to be some consensus in the House now on this important matter, and I hope that that will continue.
I turn now to the basis of South Africa's return to international sport—[Interruption.] Well, I did not wish to disappoint Opposition Members, and especially not the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who I know has taken such a keen interest in this matter. The part of Labour's document that I applaud deals with this matter. However, as usual, the Labour party seems to be trying to take credit for the fact that South Africa is now back in the international fold. In fact, it was the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his influence on the Commonwealth countries that has led to South Africa's return to international sport.
The tragedy is that, if the Gleneagles declaration on sport, to give it its full title, had not been signed, and if Opposition Members had given more encouragement to the sports bodies in South Africa which were desperately trying to integrate and which had eradicated all forms of racism within their sport, but which were penalised by Opposition Members on the basis not of their own sins but of those of their politicians, South Africa would have returned to international sport much earlier. None the less, I welcome the Opposition's late conversion, because we all look forward to South Africa's participation in every international sport.
The Government have every reason to be proud of their record. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have made a substantial investment in sport, both through the Sports Council and in terms of local government expenditure. The numerous initiatives of previous Ministers, and especially that of my hon. Friend with his champion coaching scheme, have already borne fruit. The encouragement of private participation—on the basis that the Minister of Sport's job is to encourage and not necessarily to intervene directly himself—has been welcome and has led to our excellent sporting record during the past decade. With my hon. Friend in office, we can look forward to some exciting times and to some new initiatives and policies that will carry sport forward into the year 2000 in the excellent heart in which we find it today.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Before I discuss the world student games in Sheffield, I ask the Minister to consider the terms of reference for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts as they relate to association football. There is a problem, because the terms of reference debar the foundation from supporting and financing association football. They refer association football to the Football Trust, but that deals with post-Taylor problems. The Sports Council has also expressed concern at the way in which the foundation is allocating the council's finance, which does not take cognisance of its strategic planning and the priority areas for sports development highlighted by it, after much consultation. I should be obliged if the Minister would send me a letter about that.
There were almost as many adjectives as fireworks flying around the World Student Games closing ceremony at Don Valley Stadium—brilliant, fantastic, super, terrific. And more. But if I were asked for a one word, stone cold sober, after the event verdict on the Games and its associated festival, my word would be: unbelievable. Did it all really happen here in stolid, workaday Sheffield? In 40 years as a Sheffield journalist I have never seen anything bring the city


to life the way it was brought to life during the Games fortnight. Twenty years ago, ten years ago, even one year ago, I would not have believed it possible…
From beginning to end the whole spectacle engendered some kind of magic that pulled ordinary people along with it.
That was the judgment of Peter Harvey, a reporter with the Sheffield Star, a newspaper not known for its constant support for the games. Nevertheless, it reflected the views of the vast majority of Sheffield.
We in Sheffield, with your support, Mr. Speaker, staged the world student games in July. It was the largest sporting event in the world this year and it was a huge success by any standard. It is right to put the finance behind the games into order. The Minister said that the Sports Council gave £3 million to the games. That is true. It gave that money for the purchase of equipment and that has now been dispersed to various areas in Yorkshire and throughout the United Kingdom. The construction of the new facilities had a capital cost of £ 147 million. It cost just over £20 million to run the games.
The people of Sheffield have rightly asked why, in 1987, the city of Sheffield made a bid for the world student games. By the middle of the 1980s we had lost 40,000 jobs from the steel and engineering industries and unemployment was at 15 per cent. In parts of my constituency the level of unemployment was in excess of 40 per cent. Demoralisation was inevitable, but by that time the city had gone into partnership with the private sector. It had already developed a strategy on how we could mangage the necessary change to bring Sheffield out of decline.
That change led to diversity in the economic industrial base so that the city had a higher profile. In turn, that led to a return in civic pride. We developed centres of excellence, in which the world student games played an important part. What has been the result? Inward investment into Sheffield from 1985 to 1991 has amounted to £2·5 billion. The Government will be interested to know that the ratio of public to private investment and the leverage factor is 1:3·5. That compares with any of the regeneration schemes.
An independent study by the university of Sheffield on the impact of that investment on employment prospects and the economy revealed an advantage in terms of job creation—6,500 jobs were created in Sheffield and more than 11,000 within the region. The Government should also note that each job has cost £4,000 less than those created by the construction-oriented initiatives around the country.
The new facilities are generating activity levels well beyond expectation. National and international events have been attracted to the new facilities at Sheffield, ranging from public cricket to international table tennis. The arena, which is part of the new complex, can house 12,000 people. It now stages sell-out concerts by top pop stars and philharmonic orchestras. The impact on the local economy, hotels, restaurants and other general services has been immense. That shows that a venue like the arena was necessary in the north of England. For example, of the 60,000 people who attended the Dire Straits concert held in the arena, 70 per cent. came from outside Sheffield, which shows the spending power now coming to Sheffield.
Sheffield is becoming one of the top sporting venues not only in Britain but in the world. The indoor arena to which I referred doubles as an ice rink. Its playing surface is

versatile enough to be used for basketball and volleyball and this Sunday the Soviet gymnastics team will perform there. We have also developed an international standard tennis and netball centre and the Don Valley stadium is the first purpose-designed athletics stadium to be built in this country for many years. It is also the home of the Sheffield Eagles. It staged the McVities international match which attracted the largest athletics crowd in the United Kingdom since the 1950s. Again, that shows that people in the north of England enjoy their sport.
The Ponds Forge international swimming complex is the only swimming complex in the United Kingdom with a 50 m, 10-lane pool. It will host the 1993 European swimming championships. In technical and design terms, the complex is said to be the best in the world and our British craftsmen can be very proud of it.
Two other centres have been built and the Lyceum theatre has been refurbished. The cost of all those facilities was £147 million, which is less than was spent on the stadium that housed the football world cup final in Italy. Although the facilities have been built to the highest standards, they have been designed to produce the most flexible and adaptable facilities so that young and old, able and disabled, people can use them.
A few weeks ago I was privileged to watch disabled sports at Ponds Forge. I watched a young wheelchair-bound lad absailing, which is one of the activities for which the complex has been adapted for disabled children. The smile on his face showed that his achievement was as great as that felt by Roger Bannister when he broke the four-minute mile. We must consider such people and ensure that sport is accessible to all.
Those facilities have lifted not only Sheffield's profile but that of the United Kingdom. However, the Government provided not a penny of assistance for the Ponds Forge swimming complex. The Government should review their position and consider where they can provide assistance, because that would have an immense impact on the world swimming and diving scene. The Public Works Loan Board should be at least one avenue of support for funding those facilities.
We experienced some difficulties between 1987 and the opening ceremony in July this year. One or two people fell by the wayside, but one of our biggest problems was the lack of television coverage. Apart from Yorkshire Television and BBC North, both of which did an extremely good job, the lack of coverage cost us dearly in terms of our inability to attract sponsorship. The main television channel covering sporting events of that nature should question some of its strategic planning. In late 1990, "World in Action" wheeled out three disillusioned people to slag off and undermine the games. One of them was Mr. Peter Burns, the former chief executive of the games company, who was employed by that company in 1988–89 but sacked for incompetence. He had jointly been appointed by the private and public sectors: ordered 40 cars for the staff, and he had a flat in the City which was funded by the world student games. He then decided to decorate it at a cost of £25,000. That is why he got the sack. Those were the sort of undermining activities that television companies and programmes such as "World in Action" were conducting.
The world student games constituted the peg on which Sheffield hung the development of all the facilities. If someone had predicted the worst case scenario when Sheffield made its bid in 1987, it would have been realised


in 1991 when the games were staged. The city had begun to build £147 million worth of facilities with no Government support, no national television coverage and a mostly hostile press, when the country was in recession and local government finances were being savagely cut. However, Sheffield is a city with a vision and the partnership of public and private interests were determined to lift the city out of depression so that it could stage the biggest multi-sporting event in the world this year.
There were 6,000 participants from 110 countries and 7,000 volunteers at the games. The games were opened on 14 July by our patron, Princess Anne, who stuck with Sheffield through thick and thin and showed the way to promote sport. At the games 100 embassies were represented and seven Sports Ministers from around the world attended, with a considerable number of International Olympic Committee members and representatives of many sporting organisations from around the world.
I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will acknowledge that, for the first, time Namibia performed on the international stage and, for the first time, a united Germany put a team into a multi-sport event. But no senior Minister was present on 14 July. Ministers of Sport from around the world were asking why there were no British Sports Ministers or senior Ministers present at the opening ceremony.

Mr. Atkins: It was the British grand prix.

Mr. Caborn: That is the answer.
Half a million people went through the turnstiles, which is surely a record for British athletics and sport. The opening and closing ceremonies were sell-outs and 10,000 people watched the athletics each day. The biggest crowds ever watched the volleyball and basketball games and 3,000 people watched the swimming and diving event. More importantly, 6,000 young athletes—tomorrow's leaders and decision makers—returned to their respective 110 countries with a feeling of good will and warmth for the city of Sheffield and Britain.
To quote just one of many such quotes, a Lebanese delegate said:
Without the World Student Games we would never have known the warmth and goodwill of the people of Britain.
That spells out the message.
The Police Federation magazine Police, has a lovely picture on its cover which shows what the games were all about: a police horse on which a young athlete is riding. The headline states "Policing the Forgotten Games". Inside, an article states:
The 16th World Student Games … took place in July and to the surprise of many people outside the City of Sheffield, which hosted the event, they were a resounding success.
It is to the shame of the British media and the Government which virtually ignored the games (only sending the Minister of Sport at the last minute to the closing ceremony because Neil Kinnock was making his second visit there) and to the commercial sponsors who cold shouldered the occasion, that an opportunity to beat the drum for British sporting interests and organisation prowess was largely missed.
The article concluded:
Having confounded the snide critics and Jeremiahs by staging perhaps the most outstanding sporting event ever held in Britain, (that includes the 1948 Olympics, the World Cup of 1966 and two Commonwealth Games) the forward

thinking civic leaders of Sheffield may well be wondering What do we do for an encore?' Next time will the rest of Britain have the decency to take an interest?

Mr. Richard Tracey: In the few concluding minutes of the debate I give my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). This must be his last speech on sport in the House. In announcing his retirement he has left a long and costly demob note for one of his apprentices on the Back Benches to take over. I should he interested in hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on how the Labour party could finance what sounded like a false prospectus.
I shall speak about two issues and then give the Front-Bench spokesmen time to respond, unless of course they want to send us notes through the post. Hon. Members have spoken about school sport. About two decades ago, there was a great lack of competitive sport in schools. It was said that the Inner London education authority was one of the ringleaders in the campaign against competitive sport, but that was disputed by the right hon. Member for Small Heath.
In 1988, a Mr. Desmond Nuttall, the former head of research in ILEA, summed up the Labour attitude to competition when he said:
You can't have a competitive system that condemns a large proportion to failure".
I can speak from personal experience of an outfit called the Inner-London Teachers Association. It said:
The hidden curriculum of PE does more than its fair share to produce and reproduce the social and psychological basis necessary to sustain a system populated by ruthless captains of industry, technocrats and subservient proletarians.
That association wanted to stop all that. That was the position that Britain had reached on competitive sport.
I recently attended a major event during the health and fitness week organised by one of the emerging inner London education authorities. There were 1,000 children at the event which launched a campaign continuing throughout the year to introduce youngsters to new-image rugby, and it had the support of the Rugby Football Union. Next year, there will be swimming and sports hall athletics supported by governing bodies, and the summer term will feature cricket and field athletics. In that borough 1,000 children have been enthused. I am sure that it will not surprise the House to know that it is the London borough of Wandsworth. More power to its elbow. It is essential for children to participate in sport beyond that stage and the clubs must be prepared to welcome young people and to encourage them to continue with whatever sport they take up at school.
I am surprised that neither the Opposition motion nor that of my party has mentioned the very thing that would produce facilities and money for sport—a national lottery. That opportunity has been missed for a long time and it could produce £1·1 billion. At the moment, only England and Albania are missing the chance. If we do not introduce a lottery the 6 million letters a year coming to Britain from abroad asking us to pay for foreign lotteries will increase. It is disgraceful that we are not committed to such a lottery.

Mr. Atkins: We have had a good and lengthy debate on a wide range of sports issues. Labour's charter for sport has been mentioned. As I said earlier, it is full of contradictions in relation to whether there should be more or less ministerial involvement. We have heard about Labour's inaction in contributing much to the House since I have been the Minister for Sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, Labour's charter is uncosted and we do not know what the shadow Treasury Minister thinks about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, it is full of prejudices in relation to Cleveland and that is indicative of the support that Labour authorities do not give to sport. Above all, it is unashamed plagiarism of ideas that are now Government policy. We have demonstrated our commitment by money, by the inclusion of physical education in the national curriculum, by champion coaching and by what the Prime Minister and I have done for international sport.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) accused me of not being present at the opening of the world student games. I was at the British grand prix, which was attended by 150,000 people—somewhat more than there were in Sheffield. I made three visits to Sheffield and I am confident that the grand prix, which earns a lot of money for the country, has just as much importance as the student games.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 329.

Division No. 20]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Crowther, Stan


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Darling, Alistair


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benton, Joseph
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Enright, Derek


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bradley, Keith
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cartwright, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Gordon, Mildred


Cox, Tom
Gould, Bryan





Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Nellist, Dave


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Brien, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pendry, Tom


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robertson, George


Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Rogers, Allan


Lambie, David
Rooker, Jeff


Lamond, James
Rooney, Terence


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McCartney, Ian
Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum A.
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McMaster, Gordon
Turner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Vaz, Keith


McWilliam, John
Walley, Joan


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alton, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bellotti, David


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carr, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irving, Sir Charles


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jesse1, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kennedy, Charles


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Kilfedder, James


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evennett, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kirkwood, Archy


Fallon, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fearn, Ronald
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fry, Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, Sir George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mans, Keith
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thorne, Neil


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pawsey, James
Wallace, James


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wheeler, Sir John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilshire, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Nicholas


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wolfson, Mark


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Rost, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sackville, Hon Tom



Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 67.

Division No. 21]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley


Allason, Rupert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amos, Alan
Forth, Eric


Arbuthnot, James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gale, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, Sir George


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Benyon, W.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Janman, Tim


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothterry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)





Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Sir John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Price, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Sackville, Hon Tom



Sainsbury, Hon Tim





NOES


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Bellotti, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Benton, Joseph
Fearn, Ronald


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carr, Michael
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Crowther, Stan
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)






Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pike, Peter L.


Kennedy, Charles
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Leighton, Ron
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McFall, John
Stephen, Nicol


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McMaster, Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


Madden, Max
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Morgan, Rhodri



Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to sport in the United Kingdom in the provision of grant to the Sports Council for 1992–93 of £48·8 million, which has been increased in line with forecast inflation next year, complemented by new funds of the order of £40 million this year from the Sports and Arts Foundation and the £20 million per annum additional money from the Football Trust, and a further £0·7 million for the Champion Coaching Scheme; recognises the important decision to make physical education a mandatory subject in the National Curriculum from the start of the next academic year and the lead given by Her Majesty's Government in international matters such as drug abuse and the participation of South Africa in international sport; and further believes that Her Majesty's Government has demonstrated its high priorities in the sporting field as opposed to the out-dated, uncosted, bureaucratic, interfering and irrelevant policies of Her Majesty's Opposition and its allies.

European Community Budget

[Relevant Document: European Community Document No. 5017/91 relating to revision of the financial perspective.]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7184/91, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1992, 7368/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 8442/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 20th November 1991, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 3 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 7731/91, relating to the Draft Budget for 1992, 9092/91, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 18th November 1991, relating to Council consideration of the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications and 8719/91, relating to revision of the Financial Perspective for 1992; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline and ensure that the Financial Regulation is applied strictly.
I should like to begin this annual debate by expressing my thanks to the Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for its hard work in examining the eight bulky and voluminous documents that we are debating. The pace of the Community budget procedure is such that the Committee frequently has to scrutinise documents swiftly to ensure that the interests of the House are protected. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Newham, South and the Committee for the tolerance that they showed of the requirements and exigencies of the process.
The House debated the 1991 budget last December against the background of profound changes across the continent of Europe. Since then, those changes have gathered pace. In addition to the Government's preoccupation with the intergovernmental conferences, looming over the horizon is the review of the Community's finances, which is due next year. The budget is therefore the last under the five-year interinstitutional agreement of 1988.
I should stress, however, that neither any agreement that is reached in the intergovernmental conferences nor next year's review of the Community's finances will have any effect on the 1992 budget. Most of the key reforms that the Community agreed in 1988, setting the framework for future budgets and the budget for 1992, can be changed only by unanimity. They do not expire with the interinstitutional agreement.
Among those key reforms are the budget discipline decision, which includes the agricultural guideline—a legally binding limit that exerts downward pressure on the growth of agricultural support—and the own-resources decision, which sets firm legally binding limits on Community revenues and provides for the United Kingdom abatement.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister kindly referred to downward pressure on agricultural expenditure. By what percentage will that expenditure be down in 1992?

Mr. Maude: I referred to downward pressure on growth in agricultural support. As my hon. Friend knows very well, it is important to read the fine print. The point that my hon. Friend makes is that there is inexorable growth in agricultural spending, but I shall deal with that in a little while.
The developments beyond the Community's boundaries will have a great impact on the 1992 budget. We tend to focus particularly on the changes taking place in central and eastern Europe which have this year rolled on into the Soviet Union and beyond the boundaries of Europe itself. It is right that we focus on those changes in view of the profound and beneficial implications for world order.
However, the 1992 budget also contains substantial provision for the new Asia and Latin America programme which in part aims to foster change in those regions. The budget also reflects the greater need to make provision for emergency humanitarian food aid for the Soviet Union.

Mr. William Cash: Annex B which is attached to my hon. Friend's helpful memorandum shows that the percentage increase in food aid for helping people in the world is minimal. It is absolutely disgraceful that, at the same time, there are massive increases in a wide range of other matters including not only agriculture but structural alterations, fisheries and so on, with figures ranging to an increase of 28 per cent. It is a disgraceful budget because there is no balance between what is required and what is being provided.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend needs no reminding that the budget process is by no means complete. There have been several shots at the budget—the Commission's initial preliminary draft budget, the Council's revision of it, the Parliament's amendments and the Council's rejection of most of the Parliament's amendments. There is still a process to go through in the elaborate minuet. I do not think that my hon. Friend will make the mistake of believing that the document to which he refers reflects the final state of the budget.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Before my hon. Friend moves on from help given to non-member countries, does not he find it disappointing that in the budget as drawn up at this juncture by the European Parliament there is no amount allowed for technical assistance to the USSR? Is not it generally agreed by all the expert advisers who visited the USSR in recent months that technical assistance should receive priority? Would I be unduly cynical in imagining that the European Parliament assumes that the Council of Ministers will attach priority to that issue and might increase the budget to allow for it? Is not that a nonsense? Should not it be making savings elsewhere in the budget to allow for that priority assistance to the USSR?

Mr. Maude: I shall deal with that point in more detail in a while, but my hon. Friend is right. Technical assistance to the Soviet Union is of the very greatest importance and, as he says, importance has been attached to it by all who have commented on the issue. I think that the European Parliament also attaches great importance to it and it is our view and that of the Budget Council that there is room within the budget for such assistance to the Soviet Union without breaching the financial criteria in the way in which my hon. Friend mentioned.
As for central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the 1992 budget will see the continuation of a substantial programme to help with economic reconstruction—the Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring programme—which now covers all central and eastern Europe. It aims to support the transformation of command economies into free and open economies. The draft budget makes provision—as my hon. Friend suggests —for the continuation of technical assistance to the Soviet Union as agreed by the European Council last December.
Another big issue is food aid for the Soviet Union. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as chairman of the G7 countries, agreed a 2 billion ecu package which was subsequently endorsed by the Community. A large part of that will be in the form of food credits intended to meet the food shortages expected this winter with dispersal conditional on genuine need being shown. The meeting of that need will not, therefore, add to expenditure in the 1992 budget.
Against that background, the key issue for the 1992 budget is how the Community should meet new external demands. In particular the question which both arms of the budgetary authority—the Council and the Parliament —have considered is the extent to which the demands can be met within the budgetary limits or whether they should be met with an increase in those limits.
As has been foreshadowed, the sharpest issue is how to make provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union. It was clear at an early stage that that would be the key issue, when the Commission, the Council and the Parliament considered proposed revisions for the financial perspective for 1991 and 1992 earlier this year. The revisions were to take account especially of the consequences of the Gulf, technical assistance for the Soviet Union and humanitarian aid.
It may be helpful if I refer briefly to the interinstitutional agreement. It is a political agreement between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission which was reached in 1988. It sets out the institutions' agreement on how to approach their decisions about the Community's budget during 1988 to 1992. It includes what is known as the financial perspective. That is a set of expenditure ceilings for each of the six main categories of Community spending, which the three institutions agree to respect. The agreement has provided welcome stability to the Community budgetary process since 1989.
The agreement permits the financial perspective ceilings to be revised to cover unforeseen circumstances, but subject at all times to the binding legal framework. Above all, the legally binding limits on spending on agriculture and on the overall level of Community revenues cannot be overridden by the ITA and will continue beyond the currency of the present agreement.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the increase in VAT that is levied in the United Kingdom since the last budget, there will be a windfall gain to the European Community? Perhaps he would like to tell the House how much that represents. I appreciate that he may not have the figure at his fingertips, but perhaps it could be made available in due course.

Mr. Maude: I shall check that. It is my understanding that that is not the case. When the check has been made, I shall come back to my hon. Friend with a firm answer.
When the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget in June, it made it clear that there were provisions that it considered necessary, but which had not been included in the preliminary draft budget, pending consideration of its proposal for revision of the financial perspective ceilings, especially suitable provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union, humanitarian aid and administrative costs. The PDB represented an increase in expenditure over the budget adopted for 1991 of about 11 per cent., totalling some 65·2 billion ecu, about £45·4 billion. Although it was a large increase, it was about 1·3 billion ecu within the overall ceiling of the financial perspective. Total provisions were equivalent to about 1·13 per cent. of Community GNP, compared with the 1·2 per cent. ceiling allowed under the own-resources decision of June 1988. That represented a cash margin of about 4 billion ecu.
There are reasons for this seemingly large increase in expenditure. First, the PDB provided for an increase of over 20 per cent. for the structural funds, reflecting the 1988 agreement that the funds should double in real terms between 1987 and 1993. Secondly, there was strong growth in existing policies as well as a need to provide for the new external policies that arose in the course of 1991. Thirdly, the projections for agriculture support indicate that spending will be at the guideline in 1992, rather than significantly below it as in 1991.
Spending on the common agricultural policy represents, as always, the major item in the budget. In recent years, there has been a substantial underspend against the guidelines, but that is not expected to continue into 1992. Indeed, expenditure in 1992 looked set, earlier on this year, to reach the guideline.
We strongly supported the Commission's proposals in the price-fixing negotiations earlier this year, which aimed to ensure that the 1992 guideline would be respected. The savings that resulted from those negotiations ensured that that will be so, and that the agricultural budget fully respects budget discipline. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not a chance."] My hon. Friends say, "Not a chance," but the financial perspective guidelines were not amended, even though 10 of the 12 member states wanted them amended; and the budget discipline decision taken in 1988, which many cynics and sceptics said would crumble as soon as it came under pressure, resisted the pressure on it and led to a tougher price-fixing settlement than would otherwise have been the case. That settlement may not be all that my hon. Friends would wish, but I can tell them that it is a great deal better than it would have been without the agreement that we reached in 1988.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the work of the Scrutiny Committee. It has indeed been difficult to keep up with the flow of documents—some of them amending documents—the latest of which were placed in the Vote Office this afternoon.
From the point of view of the general public, the Minister is quite right. The table reproduced in our report shows that the guidance fund now stands at about £25,000 million a year. As the Minister said, that is just within the guidelines. Do he and his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expect a similar


arrangement for world prices in future years? At some time —the hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us in which year; it may be 1993—if the rearranged agricultural policy prices do not do what they are designed to do, we shall not only be above the agricultural guidelines. We shall be looking to the third arm of income, own resources, at that date or before. Is that a reasonable summary of the situation?

Mr. Maude: Obviously, further developments have to be taken into account, but any negotiation on prices has to take account of the requirements of budget discipline. I do not claim to be an expert on the operation of the stabliser regime, but I understand that it has an inbuilt mechanism to reduce prices when production is such that it would otherwise spill the demands on the budget over a certain level. I am not claiming that the regime is perfect or anything like it, but there are disciplines built into the system, which faced and withstood a severe test this year. The regime is by no means yet perfect, but it is very much better, and it has turned out to be more robust than many had expected.
The price-fixing negotiation consequences were taken into account in the Commission's first letter of amendment to its preliminary draft budget, making provision for agricultural spending in line with the guideline.
I should comment on the United Kingdom's abatement and on its net contribution to the budget. Revised forecasts will be included in the annual statement on the Community budget—to be published, as usual, early next year, following adoption of the budget—and financial year forecasts were published in the recent autumn statement.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I note that the motion on the Order Paper is to take note of the European budget and particularly of certain documents that are about three inches thick. If the House does not take note of the documents, what will be the practical effect? Will it mean that the budget falls? No, it will not. Has the matter been discussed by the European Parliament, and can the Minister explain to us where those responsible for the budget are held democratically accountable to the people of Britain? If it is in the European Parliament, surely Members of that Parliament should be discussing it—not hon. Members.

Mr. Maude: The European Parliament certainly does discuss it—exhaustively and painfully. It is one of the two arms of the budgetary authority, which consists of the Budget Council, on which I represent the United Kingdom and from which I return to this House to account for what I have agreed there, which I think is what I am doing now, and the European Parliament, which has a considerable influence on the budget procedure. I believe that the requirements of democracy are therefore being met in that process.
Reverting to the United Kingdom's net contribution, I can tell the House that our expectation is that the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1992 would be about £2·25 billion, compared with around £2·5 billion in 1990 and £1·25 billion in 1991. The reason for the very substantial increase in 1992 over 1991 is essentially technical. The 1991 figure is artificially depressed by two factors. First, we expect a very substantial repayment next month, in respect of overpayments made in previous years, especially in 1990,

reflecting the large figure of £2·5 billion in 1990 to which I have referred. Contributions in any particular year are based upon estimates of, for example, gross national product for the year in question; and any necessary adjustments are picked up in subsequent years.
Secondly, because the adjustment last year was a payment by the United Kingdom, we get the benefit in terms of additional abatement this year, 1991. This also depresses our net contribution. The figure for 1992—around £2·25 billion—is in line with the underlying trend of recent years.
As the House knows, our contribution would be very much higher if it were not for the abatement arrangement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) secured at Fontainebleau in 1984. That mechanism is established in legislation and cannot be changed without our agreement.
The current forecast is that our abatement next year will total some 2·5 billion ecu, or £1·75 billion. By the end of next year, the cumulative total for our abatements since Fontainebleau will be around £12·5 billion. In addition, there is the total of £3·2 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley secured in abatements before the Fontainebleau arrangements—giving a total of £15·7 billion, which is a huge sum of money by any standards, which was saved for the taxpayer by those agreements and improvements on the arrangements that the last Labour Government so skilfully negotiated for this country.
The July Budget Council adopted a draft budget which was 35 million ecu above the Commission's proposals; a total little different, but with the contents significantly changed.
The Council's approach was to consider whether the Community's priorities could be met within existing budgetary ceilings and, in particular, to examine the scope for making proper provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union and for emergency humanitarian aid, within the existing category 4 of the budget—other policies—ceiling of the financial perspective.
First, the apparent growth in category 4 expenditure, was relatively restrained. Because the 1991 base, for measuring growth, was artificially high the underlying growth was very strong indeed, some 15 per cent. between 1991 and 1992, if one were to set those special provisions to one side. On the face of it, therefore, there was scope for significant, but not damaging, reductions in the Commission's proposals.
Secondly, we had particular regard to the requirement which was introduced into the financial regulation last year—at the instigation of the United Kingdom. This requires the budgetary authority and the Commission to ensure the cost-effectiveness of budgetary provisions. The Council adopted a declaration on 25 July that its consideration of reductions in the Commission's proposals was, in large part, guided by value-for-money concerns. The Council concluded that significant reductions in the Commission's proposals were indeed possible and reallocated appropriations in category 4 of the financial perspective to include provision for the Soviet Union, aid to Eastern Europe, and emergency food and humanitarian aid. That reallocation to meet Community priorities was possible without a revision to the financial perspective.
The European Parliament's approach—the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle)—has been different. It believes that the new requirements, such as technical assistance for the Soviet


Union, should be met wholly by new money. It voted amendments and modifications adding more than 500 million ecu in commitments and payments to the draft budget. In addition to those amendments, the Parliament also wanted a global revision to the financial perspective to allow a further 1·66 billion ecu—more than £1 billion—of expenditure. Its intention was that this increase in the financial perspective ceilings would allow provision to be made for spending by the structural funds, over and above the agreed progress to its doubling; expenditure on central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; humanitarian aid; tropical forests; and a reserve for administration.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On humanitarian aid, can we have an assurance that the United Kingdom representatives are not putting the brake on in the light of the reports from the Quakers, Frank Judd of Oxfam and the universities of Illinois and Harvard on humanitarian aid to southern Iraq? On tropical forests, will the United Kingdom Government cast a beady eye on what is happening to our aid to Guyana and its tropical forests?

Mr. Maude: I am afraid that I do not have the answers at my fingertips, but I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with a detailed response later.
The European Parliament did not include any provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union. Instead, the Parliament used, for its own priorities, the available headroom of 50 million ecu in non-compulsory expenditure in category 4, plus 421 million ecu allocated by the Council for the Soviet Union and for aid. In effect, the Parliament took the money that was allocated by the council and used it for its own different purposes.
In addition, the European Parliament adopted two significant changes to the expenditure on research. Provisions in the draft budget reflected legislative provisions for this expenditure, and spending in this category was more than 400 million ecu below the financial perspective ceiling as a result. The first of the Parliament's amendments was to breach the amounts deemed necessary, that is the expenditure ceiling contained in the relevant Council decision, for the second framework programme, by 44 million ecu and that of the third framework programme by 220 million ecu. The second was to propose a range of increases to non-framework programmes, including a series of new pilot projects outside the framework programmes, totalling 170 million ecu.
Our Budget Council's meeting on 12 November followed the decision of ECOFIN the previous day not to accept the Commission's proposals for a revision of the financial perspective. The Commission's proposal comprises a revision of 720 million ecu in category 4 to cover technical assistance to the Soviet Union and to create a reserve for humanitarian aid to the extent of 300 million ecu. It also proposed a switch of 80 million ecu between the sub-ceilings in category 5. ECOFIN could not conclude that such revisions were justified.
The Budget Council in July had made it very clear that the requirements should and could be met within existing ceilings. Accordingly, the Budget Council earlier this month adopted a second reading draft budget broadly in line with its first reading.

Mr. Bowen Wells: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on representing the British Government and Parliament at ECOFIN and on seeking to cut expenditure to the original Council proposal?
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that the European Parliament proposes to increase expenditure when it has no responsibility for raising the taxes necessary to meet that budget? How can a Parliament be put in an irresponsible position, and therefore an undemocratic one, by pressing for expenditure to be increased while not having the responsibility to raise taxes to meet that expenditure?

Mr. Maude: Since the European Community's inception in 1958, the European Parliament has been one of two parts of the budgetary authority. We have learnt to live with it—not always amicably—and have established a modus vivendi with the Budget Council and the Parliament, each of which has its position, and discussions take place. Democratic accountability exists in both arms of the budgetary authority. The European Parliament, when faced with choices—making a budget with taxpayers' money invariably involves making a choice between difficult and often equally attractive options—tends to avoid making a decision. The only choice that it tends to make is to put its hands into the taxpayer's pocket, which does not seem to be the right approach.

Mr. Chris Smith: Why did the Government consider that it was in order to increase the financial perspective in relation to assistance to eastern Europe and the Gulf states last year, but that it is not all right to do so this year in relation to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Maude: Because this year we took the view that there is ample room within the existing ceilings to provide that money. The Parliament has used up all the existing headroom in that ceiling for new and separate purposes. Judgments must be made and last year we judged that there was not room within those ceilings, so an adjustment in the financial perspective was justified. We do not believe that it is justified this year.
The Council also rejected all but two of the Parliament's amendments on research. It adopted a statement which I proposed, making clear to the Parliament that its proposals on research were wholly unacceptable, being contrary to treaty provisions, involving significant expenditure without a legal base, and effectively arrogating legislative authority to the Parliament.
The Commission's letters of amendment were also considered at the Council's second reading. A major element of the second letter was a proposal for new Commission posts—a revised budgetary provision which reflected the Commission's proposal for a revision of the relevant category of the financial perspective ceiling. The proposal for new Commission posts was considered in parallel with the Parliament's amendments to administrative expenditure. We accepted a Parliament amendment that covered appropriations to allow a further 327 Commission staff, requiring no revision to the financial perspective. We made clear our preference, shared by other member states, that a significant number of external posts should be created from that extra provision, reflecting the new external demands on the Community. The Council


incorporated the proposals included in the third letter of amendment, including budgetising the 1991 surplus of 938 million ecu.
The Council made it quite clear at both its first and second readings that adequate provision can be made for Community priorities, while maintaining provision for other policies. However, it also recognises that demands on the budget, particularly in the area of aid, have not diminished. Provisions for internal Community policies have, therefore, been restrained.
It will now be necessary for the presidency to examine with the European Parliament how the 1992 Budget can be adopted to ensure a proper balance between the Community's internal and external policies, within the framework of budget discipline.
The negotiations on the budget and on the financial perspective are at a delicate stage and I hope that the House will understand if I make no forecast of their outcome. We shall look for a satisfactory response from the European Parliament on research expenditure, because its proposals on that subject raise important principles of legislative and budgetary principle. We shall also seek to ensure that the Community's priorities are respected. That will definitely include making proper provision for technical assistance to the Soviet Union. We have shown that such a provision can be accommodated without damaging the general development of Community expenditure. I hope that the Parliament will reappraise its approach and accept the responsibilities placed on the budgetary authority. That means that we have to make choices as new demands and priorities emerge, not just make the choice that the Parliament tends to make, which is simply to spend more and thus take more from taxpayers' pockets.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I find it disturbing that my hon. Friend says that the European Parliament, far from exercising a restraining influence on the budget, actually puts extra pressure on it. Am I right in thinking that the only organisation that acts as a restraint on budgetary expenditure is the Council of Ministers? I do not find that reassuring, particularly as most of the Community members are net recipients of Community expenditure.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the main constraint on the Community budget is the Council of Ministers. It is certainly right that most of the member states are net recipients. There are thought to be three net contributors to the budget: Germany and Britain, which have always been so, and France, which is now a net contributor, probably a considerable one. Therefore, three of the four largest member states of the Community have a considerable interest in restraining spending. The other two countries have a greater interest in doing so than we have as any increases in spending are abated by about two thirds for us due to the Fontainebleau abatement. There is substantial pressure to restrain spending.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall that there is a strong possibility that by the end of the century Germany's gross national product could be as much as $2 trillion? Against that background, taking into account the percentage that would be contributed by Germany to the Community budget then, the important discussions that

my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is having with Chancellor Kohl today and what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said about maintaining choices, does my hon. Friend agree that that cumulative point would be a good reason for ensuring that we do not allow a central bank to take away those choices from the British people? If we did, there would be too much control in the hands of any one country.

Mr. Maude: I am not sure that there is any suggestion of a single bank taking those choices away. Such decisions will always have to be made by the Council of Ministers. We regret that the Commission does not place a greater restraint on spending. At the intergovernmental conference we made some important proposals that sought to introduce much greater financial accountability, including a requirement that, before the Commission makes a proposal, it should certify—preferably through one Commissioner with responsibility for the budget—that the proposal can be accommodated within budget discipline. We are making progress with that proposal and we are seeking to introduce additional disciplines into the system.
The budget procedure is always fairly complex, and this year has been no exception. Our aims are quite clear. We have sought to ensure that financial prudence and expenditure control are the key pillars to the budgetary process. The developments in Germany, the Gulf and Eastern Europe last year, and the events in recent months in the Soviet Union, cannot be used to reduce the Government's commitment, which I stress is shared by others in the Community, not to relax discipline. Once again, the Council has been able to tread the tightrope with some skill, producing a draft budget which is consistent with the principle of budget discipline. I commend that approach to the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Financial Secretary's most interesting comment was that the budget-making process that we are debating meets the requirements of democracy. I disagree. Every year, I complain about the inadequacy and lack of democracy in the process. We have an hour and a half late at night in which to scrutinise everything that our Ministers have been up to in the Council of Ministers and to consider the proposals in a substantial set of documents dealing with a large sum of money.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend's criticism. Are things any different in any of the other 11 national legislatures? Are some of them more rigorous in their scrutiny of such measures, or is scrutiny even worse than in this place?

Mr. Smith: I suspect that some are better and that some are considerably worse. The process by which we are expected to call Ministers to account is not up to a proper democratic standard.

Sir Teddy Taylor: May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's quite splendid criticisms in the name of democracy that a Labour Government would give adequate time for such discussions?

Mr. Smith: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that, when Labour takes office in a few months, we shall ensure that Ministers are fully accountable to the House and that adequate time is made available for that.

Mr. Maude: How would a Labour Government change procedures?

Mr. Smith: The Government made a small change last year when we started our debate on the European Community budget at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. I am surprised that the keenness to have a slightly longer debate at a more reasonable time has apparently not been carried over to this year. There is a small improvement, in that Treasury memoranda are becoming rather more helpful and somewhat easier to understand. Even so, the pile of documents before the House are still very complex, and difficult to co-ordinate. There is scope for further improvement in the Treasury advice to which we are entitled.
I have four basic points about the budget, the first of which, although small, is important. The conversion rate used throughout the documents is £1 to 1·435 ecu. Does that rate assume that the pound is at its central rate against the deutschmark within the exchange rate mechanism? I believe that that is the case. The central rate against the deutschmark is 2·95, and the pound is hovering at around 2·85. Inevitably, that means that the conversion into pounds will be more expensive than it would otherwise be. What is the difference represented by the conversion rate?
Secondly, the Financial Secretary referred to the level of funds proposed for agricultural support. The commitment figure for this year is 32·516 billion ecu, and that for 1992 is 36·008 billion ecu, including the 1 billion ecu of monetary reserve. That represents a substantial increase of 10·7 per cent., and that is the figure sought by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who rightly picked up the Minister's comment on downward growth. There is no evidence of downward pressure either in the agricultural support heading or in growth. In the past couple of years, the share of the Community budget taken by agricultural support was apparently reducing, but it is now rising again.
The explanation offered by the Council for this phenomenon makes interesting reading. In its explanatory memorandum, it says:
the increase in agricultural expenditure … is the result of a number of unfavourable factors, in particular the considerable fall in the US-Dollar/ECU ratio, the worsening of world prices in certain products (especially cereals, sugar, and beef and veal) and
here is the key to the problem—
the structural imbalance (over-production) in the Community in the case of certain products".
There we have, in a nutshell, the entire problem of the common agricultural policy. It encourages overproduction, and in the process helps neither the farmers nor the consumers of the Community. Rather less than 40 per cent. of the agricultural support fund actually ends up in the pockets of farmers.
A radical overhaul of the CAP is needed, and it would have been helpful if the Government had told us rather more about what they are doing, if anything, to ensure that that radical overhaul takes place.

Mr. Maude: We have been pressing for it.

Mr. Smith: Judging by the budget before us, they do not appear to have been particularly successful.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman upbraids us for not having succeeded in securing radical reform of the CAP. He knows as well as any other hon. Member that the United Kingdom, alone for much of the time, has been

pressing for that. The resistance to it comes from those fellow member states to whom the hon. Gentleman, in another context, would like to hand very much more British power.

Mr. Smith: I shall ignore the final part of what the Financial Secretary said, because it is untrue. Not only have the British Government been studying this, but the much-maligned European Parliament has, in its comments on the budget, been rather more vigorous than the Government or the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers insists on a 1·11 per cent. across-the-board cut in the amount that is scheduled for agricultural support. On the other hand, the European Parliament has suggested that, instead of taking an across-the-board cut, the cuts in the agricultural support budget should be better targeted. It has especially argued that they should be targeted to "encourage projects which may play a role in the reform of the CAP".
We must ask why, given the opportunity to ensure that a reduction in the agricultural support figures in order to fit the figure within the financial perspective had to take place, the Government appear to have gone along with an across-the-board cut and have not used that opportunity to propose, as the Parliament has proposed, cuts which could assist the process of reform.
The third point that I want to address is the dispute that has emerged between the Council and Parliament over technical assistance to the Soviet Union. No one on either side of the argument is disputing the need and appropriateness of such assistance. A figure of some 400 million ecu is being proposed. That follows a commitment entered into back in January by the Foreign Ministers of the Community.
But in refusing to agree to an amendent to the financial perspective of some 300 million ecu, the Council of Ministers is not prepared to vote the funds for its decision. Although it was perfectly prepared to revise the financial perspective last year for eastern Europe and the Gulf states, it refuses to consider revising the financial perspective this year, despite the fact that, even if the present mechanism of the financial perspective for category four were to be increased, as proposed by the Commission, the total budget would still be substantially within the own resources ceiling, which is the ceiling which most matters.
The Council is also refusing to agree to such an amendment despite the fact that a carry-over of 938 million ecu from this year is being proposed by the Council —effectively an underspend on this year's budget—and some of that funding could be applied to the aid for the Soviet Union. The net effect of the refusal to amend the financial perspective is that the funds which will be earmarked for the Soviet Union will not be available for other priorities within that category.
Among the proposals from the Commission in category four are the extremely important items of aid to the third world. The Council of Ministers and the British Government are effectively saying that aid for the Soviet Union must be at the expense of aid for the third world. That is not a principle which the Opposition can accept.
Fourthly, there is the continuing issue, to which, sadly, the Financial Secretary did not allude, of additionality, especially the Government's attitude to the RECHAR programme. European Community funds are desperately needed, especially by areas suffering from the effects of pit


closures. The problem was highlighted in the recent Hemsworth by-election, and I know that my hon. Friend the new and excellent Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has been pursuing it ever since his election. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has also followed it up assiduously.
The problem arises because European Community Council regulation 2052/88 requires the additional structural funds to have a
genuine additional economic impact in the regions concerned.
That regulation was agreed to by the current United Kingdom Government; but, in the view of the European Commission, they are failing the "additional impact" test in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has pursued the issue with remarkable tenacity, as is his wont. He received a letter from the Foreign Secretary, dated 11 November, which stated very clearly what the Government were up to. At least the Foreign Secretary has the honesty to admit that. He wrote:
We therefore take account of expected aggregate receipts from the EC funds in planning our public expenditure.
Effectively, the Foreign Secretary was admitting that the Government reduce Treasury expenditure on the ground that money is coming in from the European Community.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: The same applies to areas that qualify under objective 2 of the European social fund. In Strathclyde, courses are organised for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and women who want to return to work. The money that is provided is not a supplement to the funds that could provide the services that are needed; it is a substitute for those funds.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The root cause of the problem is the Government's insistence that they alone should determine what funds are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow pursued the matter further. He received a letter from the Prime Minister, dated 12 November, and another from the Secretary of State for Energy, dated 21 November. The word processors at No. 10 Downing street must be linked to the same computer as those of the Department of Energy, for the wording of the two letters was identical. The Prime Minister's, however, added a little coda. After explaining, in a somewhat specious fashion, the Government's view on the question of additionality, the letter concluded:
The Commission are misrepresenting the position"—
we do not agree; it seems to us that the Commission is representing the position very accurately, and that it is the Government who are misrepresenting it—
and pursuing radical suggestions for changes in the UK public expenditure control system. We do not accept that they have any basis for this attitude.
Here comes the prize sentence:
I hope that you"—
referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—
will use your influence with Bruce Milian to help us unblock this problem and get the grants released.
I admire the skills and persuasiveness of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, but it is absolutely ridiculous for the Prime Minister of this country to say that, because the Government have a disagreement with the European

Commission, they want my hon. Friend to help to sort the matter out. The Government ought to recognise that their interpretation is wrong and that Bruce Millan is right.

Mr. Maude: The Government have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain to Commissioner Millan and his staff exactly how the system works. The Commission did not properly understand how our system worked. Now it understands it a bit better.
The effect of our public spending totals, taking into account receipts from Community funds, is that levels of spending are higher than they would otherwise be. Thus, both the letter and the spirit of the additionality requirement are met. The only conclusion that we can draw is that, having had it all explained to him at dictation speed, Commissioner Millan has taken a personal decision, for party political reasons, to frustrate the release of these funds to areas of this country, including my constituency, that need that money, in order to force a confrontation with the Government. Instead of coming here and whining on about it, I think that Labour Members should talk to Commissioner Milian. He alone has the ability to release this money.

Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary is talking a load of nonsense. I had expected better of him—but never mind.

Mr. Dalyell: We have talked at length to Commissioner Milian, and we are absolutely persuaded that he is right and that the Government are wrong. I say that as a Member of this House.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are coming dangerously close to echoing the words of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who is unable to be with us tonight but with whom I have discussed the matter. He said:
I believe that Commissioner Milian is the man who is being thoroughly boody-minded."—[Official Report, 15 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 277.]
That was not only discourteous; it was a completely erroneous portrayal of the situation. It is about time the Government realised that they—not Commissioner Milian, not the European Commission—are depriving the most needy areas of this country of money that is rightfully due to them.

Dr. Godman: It is not Commissioner Milian who is being bloody-minded over the distribution of funds under the Renaval programme but Scottish Office Minsters and officials. The fact is that 20 million ecu has been promised to my constituency and the parliamentary constituency of Govan—both declining shipbuilding areas. It is the Scottish Office that is holding up that money, not Commissioner Bruce Milian. It is Scottish Office Ministers who, in their obduracy, are being bloody-minded.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes the point graphically. What is happening on the ground shows that the Government are clearly at fault, and that they are completely wrong about the issue.
We remain unhappy about the budget proposals relating to agriculture, aid to the Soviet Union, additionality and the RECHAR programme.

Mr. McMaster: Before my hon. Friend moves too far away from the subject of addionality, does he agree that it is important to place on record that Commissioner Milian is not saying that those areas should not receive the


money? In fact, he said that they should have twice the amount of money. That is the key to additionality. Can my hon. Friend tell me how isolated the Government are on the issue of additionality?

Mr. Smith: As far as I am aware, the Government are alone on the issue. It means that British people in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) are losing in a way that people elsewhere in the Community are not. They are losing directly as a result of the bloody-mindedness not of the Commission or Bruce Milian but of the Government.
There are definite areas within the Budget where the Government need to change their approach and their practice. It is not our intention to divide the House, because the broad thrust of the budget is acceptable. However, the Government should not allow that to fool them into thinking that we are happy with what they have been up to or what it appears that they intend to be up to, according to the Financial Secretary's remarks, during the remaining weeks of discussion on the budget.

Mr. James Cran: I do not intend to take up much of the House's time. I remember taking part in a similar debate on a previous occasion. I called that debate a charade and I see no reason to change my mind about this one. It does not matter whether one is a Euro-sceptic or a Euro-enthusiast. If we are to be called upon to consider a budget for anything, but particularly the European Community, it is utterly disgraceful that we are given an hour and a half late in the evening to do so. Both Front-Bench spokesmen have taken over an hour to deploy their cases and very little time is left for the rest of us. I have noticed that many of my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have made gallant attempts to make interventions—good interventions—but they are not worth a hill of beans when considering a budget the size of this one. This is an utter disgrace.
The Select Committee on European Legislation—to which we should pay a certain tribute—said that the budget raises questions of political importance. My golly, that has not been reflected in the amount of time that we have been given to debate it.
We are discussing a take-note motion. What does that mean? Does it mean that. I as a Back-Bencher, or the House collectively, has any right of veto over the budget? Of course not. Therefore, if one has no meaningful input into a budget or anything else, I fail to understand why we should consider it in the first place.
I associate myself with those who have talked of the indigestibility of the documentation that we are supposed to consider. It is voluminous and incapable of being read properly. It was not available to me on Monday. I am not getting at the Financial Secretary as an individual, because I think that he is one of the best Ministers in the Government—I would not say that if I did not believe it—but I must tell him that, in addition to extra time, the documentation must be simplified. It is incapable of being properly read or evaluated with the resources available to Back Benchers.
My second plea is for documents to highlight value for money. If we make a net contribution to a budget, whatever it is, as an hon. Member I wish to be assured that

we are getting value for money. I do not believe that we are getting value for money and I shall give my hon. Friend the Minister three examples.
I am what would be called a Euro-sceptic. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke of nooks and crannies. Given the number and nature of items in the budget, it covers more than nooks and crannies.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have to convince me about three items of the budget, the first of which is the internal market. I think that the internal market is "a good thing". It will be good for the United Kingdom and for the rest of the European Community. I have no doubt about that, but my hon. Friend and I know perfectly well that it will not be in place on 1 January 1993 or for a long time after. Will he therefore tell me how the budgetary item for the European Community will facilitate the achievement of the internal market? If it will not achieve that within a reasonable period, why are we bothering to spend the money? I should like an answer to that question.
The budget is riddled with references to something called the social dimension. My hon. Friend the Minister knows perfectly well that Conservative Members reject the European Community's concept of a social dimension. He knows that by that I mean the proposed directives on working time, on the protection of pregnant women at work, on part-time work and on temporary work. He and I know perfectly well that, if accepted, they would only create unemployment. Therefore, perhaps he will tell me why we contribute to the evolution of those directives, albeit that in the Council of Ministers we shall no doubt try our best to ameliorate them. If he cannot explain that, I fail to understand why we spend the money.
Thirdly, I know perfectly well why structural funds are being increased—I can read as well anybody else—but that is not the question that we should be answering. We have learnt that regional policy does not work. If one took the map of assisted areas for 1932 and superimposed the current areas, they would be almost precisely the same. That is why the Government, rightly, have been looking for new ideas for regional policy. I remain to be convinced that the European Community is doing so. In fact, I know that it is not. It is spending money on the same old measures that have not worked in the past 50 or 60 years. I must again ask my hon. Friend the Minister why the United Kingdom is contributing to something that essentially does not work and is merely a temporary palliative.
I have much more to say, but in fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak I shall throw away the rest of my notes. I doubt very much whether I shall take part in this again because it is just a damned disgrace.

Sir Russell Johnston: Only about 16 minutes of the debate are left, so rather than follow the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) or speak for any length, I shall, first, agree 100 per cent. with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. In the two-day debate on Maastricht last week, hon. Members went on about the importance of the House's sovereignty and how it would be taken away if the proposals before the intergovernmental conferences were passed.
Here we are, late at night, discussing what has already been fixed. We can do nothing about it. This is nothing


other than an opportunity for a variety of political insomniacs to fill the night air with wind and generalities. The debate will have no effect, so it is ridiculous.
In the short time available, I shall make three points. I do not agree with the Minister that it was a good thing for the Council to cut back as it has. Unlike the hon. Member for Beverley, I was impressed by the proposals in the European Parliament's amendments. It seems that the Council has effectively cut back on a variety of desirable activities. It has cut the money allocated to research and development, to educational projects—including those linked to the channel tunnel—and to the fisheries research programme which is directly and importantly linked to Scotland. It has not said whether it would be willing to extend, for example, the Perifra programme which, during its year of operation, has proved of great value to the peripheral regions of the Community. The programmes suggested by the Parliament were worthy of support and did not breach the financial perspectives. Indeed, as I understand it, they were considerably beneath them. Since 1988 the European Community has spent or required 35 billion ecu less than the agreed ceiling and the revision requested for the 1992 budget was only 720 million.
I conclude by asking what is the Government's attitude to the Perifra programme? Do they believe that it should be extended?
I also wish to associate myself with all that the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman said about additionality, although I must say, en passant, that the rules that the Government are following are those followed by the previous Labour Government. This is not a new issue, but it is certainly one that we should sort out properly.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A number of hon. Members have complained about the inadequacy of the time given to this debate. I refer you to Standing Order No. 14, which states, inter alia:
Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later:
Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting".
May I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to give serious consideration to adjourning the debate at 11.56 pm until the next sitting?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I am aware of the Standing Order to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am not of a mind to adjourn the debate. While I am on my feet, may I say that it is not for the Chair to determine the length of time allocated to such debates. However, I very much regret the great length of time taken by Members on the Front Bench in such a short debate. It is done only at the expense of Back-Benchers, who have a right to be heard.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): I am sure that the whole House agrees with what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an insult to taxpayers and democracy that the proposed expenditure of vast sums and

substantial quantities of facts and figures should be considered in a debate of one-and-a-half hours, in which half an hour is made available to Back-Bench Members.
I want to ask many questions. I want to have details of the European centre for global independence and solidarity, which is spending a vast amount of money. It seems that it has been set up in Lisbon and that it is of importance for the development of solidarity. That is all that we have been told about it. I do not know what the centre is and I should like to know. I should like to know why there are vast entertainment allowances for the Commissioners. I would love to know why £1 million a year is spent on newspapers. I should dearly like to know the details of expenditure on uniforms. Of course, these questions are irrelevant. There seem to be a massive number of secretaries in the European Parliament.
I have hundreds of questions but I shall ask only a few because of the shortage of time. Why does the Minister try to pretend that spending on agriculture will be secured when we know from previous occasions that this is always accompanied by an accountancy fiddle? Surely my hon. Friend of all people knows that there is no possible way in which expenditure on the common agricultural policy can be maintained.
I make two suggestions to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, he will see that there is the possibility of a new attendancy fiddle. I am sure that he is well aware that, despite all the assurances of strict budgetary controls, there was the fiddle of the metric year of 10 months with 12 months' income and 10 months' expenditure. The Council of Finance Ministers refused even to consider the matter, although we knew that there was a fiddle. We knew that it was illegal. If any company director had adopted the policy, he would have been imprisoned.
There is a new proposal before us. I never knew that the Commission could determine what it regarded as the appropriate rate of inflation. However, it is all set out for us. There are three new considerations whereby expenditure has been increased substantially because the Commission feels that that is needed to offset inflation. In fact, the inflation percentage has been determined by the Commission, and there we see possible fiddle No. 1.
We see also that expenditure on agriculture continues to increase and the reasons are set out. The Commission has said that it regards the budget as a transitional measure pending the planned reform of the CAP, which it thinks should begin to bear fruit in 1993. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister also to consider the way in which figures have been changed because it is thought that there are opportunities for expenditure elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister says that things are under control and that expenditure is being contained, but we always discover that the figures prove to be bogus and that the accountancy of the EEC is a disgrace to organised democracy.
Why do Ministers always say that there is control and containment when the figures show the opposite? Why does my hon. Friend the Minister talk about containment when, according to my estimate, the total budget—that, of course, is bogus—is increasing by 10·6 per cent?
I agree fundamentally with what you so clearly said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the message will get through from the House that we regard the present procedure as an insult to democracy. It is a scandal—it is shameful—that the Government should allow only one-and-a-half hours for such a debate, especially when


the Front-Bench spokesmen take an hour for themselves. That makes us feel that it would be infinitely better if we did not debate the budget. If we are to be offered a debate of this sort, let us have no debate at all.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I understand that the Financial Secretary wishes to spend three or four minutes replying to the debate, so only three minutes are available to me. I make no apology for raising the point of order earlier. We have seen a disgraceful abuse of the role of the Back-Bench Member. I agreed with the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) when he queried whether there was any point in having such an inadequate debate. I wanted to talk about the common agricultural policy and the budgeting for the common fisheries policy. I wanted to advocate how sensible budgeting could help us to develop a more efficient management of our fishery resources, a matter that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House.
As there is no time available for Back-Bench Members to raise such issues, we are reduced to asking a couple of questions. We spend more time in European Standing Committee B cross-examining the Minister and in debate than we do on the Floor of the House. That is stupid.
My couple of questions, then: first—

Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, a few months ago, we spent more time discussing the European Community's new regulations on hot water boilers than we have spent discussing this budget?

Dr. Godman: I can confirm exactly that.
May I ask the Financial Secretary whether, if the Renaval programme—to my constituency, an important regional fund—is to end in 1993, the money will run out before the end of 1992?
I see that the European Court of Justice is to receive an increase of 9·8 per cent. in its budget, which I understand will involve the creation of another 19 posts. Is it the Government's view that the court should be able to raise revenue by way of introducing financial penalties against recalcitrant states and other parties who choose to ignore directives? The European Court of Justice is effectively a supreme court in relation to the Scottish and English legal systems and the legal systems of the other nations. I wanted to ask several more questions about that, but I had better allow someone else to speak.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I share the feelings of outrage expressed by Back Benchers on both sides of the House. The European Community budget is of enormous importance to our people and our economy. Year after year, Britain makes massive net contributions to the European Community budget and it appears that it is barely restrained at all. We are told that the European Parliament actually puts pressure on the Community to increase its expenditure. The only restraint seems to be the Council of Ministers and there—as I pointed out in an intervention, with which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary agreed—the problem is that the majority of the Community countries are net recipients of the expenditure.
Who will control the European Community budget, therefore? The answer is that we in the House must do our

very best to do so, and we can do our best only if we have the proper time and the proper documentation. I regard the bundle of documents that we have been given—hastily stapled and put together—as an absolute disgrace. If we are to consider these most important matters, we need to have the issues and the figures set out carefully and professionally, not in this slovenly way.
I realise that the Minister is not personally responsible —[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he is."] Well, ultimately. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] On this occasion, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do not think that any of us will give him the benefit of the doubt on the next occasion. The arrangements really do need to he improved. The way in which the papers have been put together and the standards of presentation are slovenly and the House must demand an improvement.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr. Maude: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call the Financial Secretary.

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143, put the Question, That Strangers do withdraw.

Question negatived.

Mr. Maude: I seek to respond briefly to the debate only because I have been asked a great many questions. My opening speech took up some time because a good half of it was my responding to interventions, which I am happy to do because that is one way in which these debates can be useful.
I accept the strictures that have been made about the documentation, although I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the improved quality of the Government's explanatory memorandum. I undertake to look carefully at the way in which the documentation is presented in future years.
On the points that have been made about the timing of the debate, I personally would be happy to spend many long hours discussing such matters, but they are arranged between the usual channels and no doubt these points will be made to and through the usual channels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to VAT. The VAT contributions are based on a notional harmonised level of VAT and, as I suspected, the proportion does not vary with changes in individual national bases.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury dealt at some length with the issue of RECHAR. There has been a good deal of concern about that matter and we have sought to have it explained. It has now been explained and we thought that it had been understood by the Commission, but it still wilfully and wantonly withholds moneys that are properly due to this country.
My hon. Friend for Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) referred to value for money and asked why we should spend money on the single European market when it will not be achieved for a long time. The single market is, of course, being achieved on a continual basis. Barriers are being removed by regulation and legislation all the time, so


1992 is not the magic moment when all the barriers will suddenly disappear. It is a process, but a great deal will come into operation at that time.
As far as structural funds are concerned, that is—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7184/91, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1992, 7368/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 8442/91, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 20th November 1991, relating to Letter of Amendment No. 3 to the Preliminary Draft Budget, 7731/91, relating to the Draft Budget for 1992, 9092/91, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget, the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 18th November 1991, relating to Council consideration of the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications and 8719/91, relating to revision of the Financial Perspective for 1992; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline and ensure that the Financial Regulation is applied strictly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise this point of order now rather than during the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it would have taken up some time. We accept your ruling that it was judged by the Chair not to be appropriate to use the power of the Standing Order to extend this debate, but that leaves this question for the House and perhaps for the Select Committee on Procedure: will it be possible to insist on having at least a full day's debate plus an hour and a half for such debates in the future so that various issues can be covered?
One such issue is the procedure of setting the budget itself and the modifications that may or may not be proposed by the European Parliament and the reaction of

the Council of Ministers. A second relates to the Court of Auditors, because Parliament should seek to give support to the Court of Auditors. Although this matter can be raised at other times in the parliamentary year, it also relates to the question of resources that are available to the Court of Auditors, which is a separate issue from the consideration of the report of the Court of Auditors.
The third issue that arises relates to trying to ensure that those hon. Members who serve on European Standing Committees A and B and on the Scrutiny Committee, plus other hon. Members who are interested in European issues, can give as much attention to these vast sums of money and to Britian's contribution to the European budget as they do to the design of central heating boilers and other things.
I realise that the Chair may not be able to answer these points immediately, but they should be on the record so that the House can consider them in one way or another.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House, and certainly the Chair, appreciates the hon. Gentleman's comments, which no doubt have been noticed by the Front-Bench spokesmen and the authorities of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not it worth stating that the Government are in charge of business and that they should have decided—indeed, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) should have encouraged them—to provide a full day for debate instead of having the Leader of the House recommend a four-day week for Members of Parliament?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not entering into a debate, but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber earlier he would have heard the remarks made from the Chair.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Sir William Clark, Mr Roger Sims and Sir Charles Morrison be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. James Hill, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Sir Gerrard Neale be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Royal Naval Workshop, Almondbank

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Bill Walker: The royal naval aircraft workshop at Almondbank in my constituency was established during the dark days of the second world war. The location of such an important aircraft repair workshop was determined by the military strategic need to locate vital establishments away from high-risk areas and by the need to spread the risk further by placing key military establishments in less densely populated areas of the country. The logic for placing high-risk naval and military essential maintenance facilities far from other high-risk naval and military establishments is as relevant today as it was at the time of the German air offensive in the 1940s.
Since 1945, Almondbank has witnessed many changes of military policy. Consequently, when the 400-plus work force were advised by the base commander that a review of the tri-service aircraft repair and maintenence units, which embraces Almondbank, Fleetlands and St. Athan, may result in the closure of Almondbank, the alarm bells began to ring.
I recognise that such concern, although understandable, could be premature, because the logic of retaining a relatively low-cost workshop, as well as a distribution and stores depot at Almondbank, could be reinforced by any review of tri-service facilities. I also recognise that Almondbank's stable and efficient work force could fare well in any review.
Why, then, am I concerned? Because my experience of management surveys—I have been involved in complex and highly technical inquiries into, for example, the takeover of substantial maintenance facilities—has frequently highlighted the vital need to ensure that all the information concerning the different establishments uses the same base line and criteria.
In simple language, the system of measurement at each establishment must be the same base line. The hours worked per direct worker, per year, must be calculated on the same statistics and should clearly show such variables as sickness leave. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is no difference in the base line measurements between the establishments.
I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that all the units involved in the review of the tri-service aircraft maintenance facilities have historically used the same base criteria. I will not be surprised if my right hon. Friend cannot give me that assurance, because the services involved are historically unlikely to have done so. Different units in the Navy may not use the same base criteria.
Consequently, I hope that my right hon. Friend will write to me when he has had the opportunity to investigate the facts, especially those relating to historic base and cross-revenue criteria. The work force and I need to be reassured that decisions affecting Almondbank and other units will be based upon verifiable common measurements.
I should also remind my right hon. friend that, within the past two weeks, Almondbank has received an award for the efficient way in which its uses electricity. The Hydro Board efficiency award is much sought after. In addition to that award, Almondbank has a low-cost contract for the

supply of the cheapest industrial electricity—electricity generated from hydro power. That is another reason for retaining the workshop at Almondbank.
My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the specialist plating carried out at Almondbank. He will be aware of the huge savings achieved by plating the worn parts of helicopter transmissions. For example, a £300 plating job can be measured against the cost of a new component worth anything up to £18,000. Parts can be plated again and again, thus saving the taxpayer many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the substantial investment that has taken place at Almondbank. Consequently, the costs of moving may never be recovered fully via revenue expenditure elsewhere. I should want to see the evidence supporting real revenue savings were a decision taken to relocate the facilities from Almondbank. Relocation costs must be fully addressed and explained. My right hon. Friend should remember that Almondbank is in a low-cost local authority area and that substantial room still exists at the base for additional expansion, if required.
It would be most odd if the helicopter maintenance and stores unit were relocated in a high-cost area, such as southern England, or in Wales, particularly following recent decisions by the Royal Air Force to locate so many of its assets in Scotland. The Royal Marine and Royal Navy aviation assets are also based in Scotland.
The location of Almondbank in relation to Harrogate, where the main RAF stores facility is located, and to Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars, Condor and Prestwick makes it possible for the recently computerised stores unit at Almondbank to provide a by-return spares service to all those Scottish bases. Moreover, Almondbank has recently been geared up to handle the Chinook mark 2 and the new Merlin helicopters, which will soon come into service. Those are further good reasons for retaining Almondbank.
In the main, the work force at Almondbank live in the constituencies of Perth and Kinross and Tayside, North, with some people travelling to work from Stirling. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that those three constituencies are the most northern United Kingdom constituencies held by the Conservative party? Almondbank is the largest engineering employer in the Perth and Kinross district council area and the largest employer in my constituency. I draw attention to that because, if the review team's report can produce only marginal savings, the political cost would be too high and the decision to close the base should not be taken.
I make no apology for reminding my right hon. Friend that the military is an essential and important part of the fabric of the Union. That the Scots provide a substantial proportion of armed forces personnel cannot be disputed. With less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, Scotland regularly contributes more than 20 per cent. of naval, Army and Air Force personnel. To continue to recruit from Scotland at acceptable levels requires the location of military bases within Scotland. It is also tangible evidence of the Government's commitment to the Union, which the Opposition can never emulate.
Constituents of Tayside, North and their representative in this place have never failed to support the need for military bases in Scotland, which includes the nuclear force on the Clyde. We also support the need for the noisy, fast, low-flying jet aircraft, so we expect a Conservative


Government to retain the royal naval workshop at Almondbank. Helicopters are the military hardware of today and tomorrow, and a substantial number of helicopters will be based in Scotland and northern England, which makes Almondbank an ideal location.
I suppose that one of the strongest arguments for the continuing existence of the royal naval aircraft workshop and stores is the low staff turnover and the relatively low-cost housing, coupled with the superb health service and education facilities in north Tayside. That makes it easy to recruit and retain staff at Almondbank. In addition, the technical training and the links with Perth college have, down the years, produced the sort of textbook local community involvement that is a credit to the management of the workshops and the staff at the college. Those factors would not be easily replaced were Almondbank to close.
I believe that I have clearly articulated why the base and workshops at Almondbank should be retained, for defence and political reasons. I hope that I have demonstrated that Tayside and Scotland need to retain the skills and the training that the combination of Perth college and Almondbank provides. For all those reasons, the Government would be well advised to retain the happy, efficient royal naval aircraft workshop and stores unit at Almondbank in my constituency.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on having secured this Adjournment debate. He, together with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), has taken a close interest in the royal naval aircraft workshop at Almondbank. I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to its work in support of the Royal Navy and the other services, and to explain our thinking about its future.
The workshop is situated on the western outskirts of Perth, on a single site of about 25 acres. Its origins date back to the second world war. The original workshops were created in 1940 to support the royal naval stores depot which moved to Almondbank following bombing raids on the Coventry district that year. By 1946, the depot had expanded to a total of seven sites. From 1946 to 1973, the repair, maintenance, manufacture and storage of all types of naval air stores, for fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, was carried out at Almondbank.
At the beginning of the 1970s, it was decided to rationalise some aircraft support work. The Royal Air Force became responsible for the repair and overhaul of fixed wing aircraft. The Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation—NARO—was established to undertake helicopter repair and overhaul for all three services. That coincided with the closure of the royal naval stores depot at Almondbank. Therefore, in June 1973, the royal naval aircraft workshop was created as part of NARO, with all remaining activities, including administration and stores, being concentrated on the workshop site.
NARO includes the royal naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands in Gosport, near Portsmouth, which is the main helicopter third-line repair facility, dealing with airframes and engines. There is also a small facility at Wroughton,

near Swindon. Fixed-wing third-line repair is primarily conducted at RAF St. Athan in south Wales, while electronic component work for both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft is largely centralised at RAF Sealand near Chester.
The main task at Aldmondbank today may be summed up as component repair, accounting for some 85 per cent. of the total work load. My hon. Friend referred to some of the examples of that work currently in progress. Every year, RNAW Almondbank deals with about 15,000 components of 470 different types. As well as repair, the workshop undertakes complete reconditioning of components. In addition to supporting the tri-service helicopter fleet, the establishment continues to use existing facilities to support RAF Buccaneer and Phantom aircraft, but this work will decline as those aircraft are retired from service. The range of items dealt with includes helicopter transmission components, also hydraulic, avionic and general engineering components. A range of modern engineering techniques is used to deal with the varying requirements of the work and different materials.
The workshop is also equipped to salvage parts. The salvage of parts from transmission components is a major activity, offering a cost-effective alternative to buying new parts. RNAW Almondbank acts as the master tool centre for the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation. That requires expert appraisal of drawings to decide whether tools required at NARO establishments would best be manufactured in house, or purchased from industry. The current tooling task at Perth is the manufacture of small quantities of tools for Astazou, Gem and Lycoming T55 aero engines and for Olympus and Tyne marine gas turbines.
There is a wide range of special manufacturing tasks. These include the manufacture and repair of rescue equipment, the manufacture of modification sets, aircraft seats and covers, electrical cable looms, avionic test sets, engine stands and a range of ground support equipment. The repair of Lynx main rotor blades is also undertaken. The establishment is able to manufacture and carry out major repairs on glassfibre reinforced products.
In addition to these repair and manufacturing tasks, the establishment also contains an element of the Royal Naval Stores and Transport Service, RNSTS. This primarily provides stores and logistic support for RNAW, but also carries out transhipment tasks for the naval stores organisation and for the RAF priority freight network.
To carry out this very wide range of tasks, RNAW Almondbank has a work force of some 400, as my hon. Friend said. Twenty-five contractors' staff also work at Almondbank. The superintendent is a Royal Navy commander, responsible to the Director General Aircraft (Navy). He is the only service man at Almondbank, the remainder of the staff being civilian. Some 50 of these are from the RNSTS. Recruitment and, just as important, retention of staff are good. The average length of service is over 11 years, and many employees have over 20 years' service.
The nature of the work is reflected in the high proportion of skilled craftsmen, of which there are some 175. There are also 23 apprentice craftsmen training under a standards-based scheme. Air service training at Scone, RNAY Fleetlands and Perth technical college provide appropriate training modules. This year Almondbank apprentices won a first and a second prize in the MoD's national Tom Nevard competition, an achievement of


which the establishment is justly proud. I reiterate what my hon. Friend said about Almondbank's success in energy conservation which won for it an energy efficiency award from the Hydro Board.
In addition to apprentice training, many personnel, at all levels, devote some of their own time to studying for a range of qualifications to improve their skills and develop their careers. The majority of specialist training is carried out by local colleges, with which the establishment enjoys an excellent relationship.
The skills arid versatility of the work force were tested to the full during the Falklands and Gulf conflicts. The ability to produce, at short notice, equipment and manufacture spares not readily available from commercial sources proved of great value. On each occasion, the establishment worked round the clock to meet high priority requirements. Perth may be proud of the establishment's achievements in peace and war.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates, "Britain's Defence for the 90s", set out our strategy for smaller, but flexible and mobile, forces. Helicopters will continue to play an important part in all three services in the next decade and beyond. There is no doubt that there will be a substantial continuing need for the type of work currently undertaken at Almondbank.
However, we must make sure that every aspect of support is carried out as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. Failure to do so would be to the detriment of the front line. It is for that reason that we are currently conducting, under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, an efficiency scrutiny into the arrangements for third-line helicopter repair. The terms of reference are broad. The scrutiny team is required to look at the effectiveness of the current arrangements. It is asked to assess the future capacity required for fixed and rotary wing aircraft repair in the light of planned force levels, and to compare that with the capabilities currently planned.
The team is also asked to consider whether there is a scope for rationalisation of facilities and to consider the possible merits of a single defence support agency, extending work already undertaken on the possibility of transforming NARO into an agency. While the scrutiny team has been asked to consider rationalisation, there is no presumption that this is the likely or preferred outcome.
My hon. Friend has eloquently voiced the concerns felt by many of the Almondbank work force. I assure him and his constituents that Almondbank has not in any way been singled out for potential closure. All the establishments presently, or potentially, concerned with this important work come within the study's remit.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the playing field is even. The calculations being made by the efficiency scrutiny team will be based on like information for all the different sites. Whether that means the team's historical information is on an identical basis is another matter, but it will make absolutely certain that any information that it uses directly compares like with like.
The scrutiny team is not due to report until early next year. Its recommendations, whatever they may be, will be carefully considered and, if necessary, further work commissioned. Ministers will consider the extent and timescale of implementation of the report in the light of all the relevant factors. In addition to possible savings from any transfer of work whatever establishments it might involve, we would need to consider the costs involved. We would need to consider, too, the availability of skilled workpeople and the economic impact of any proposal. This point was made by my hon. Friend. Any proposal with a significant impact on civilian staff would be the subject of formal consultation with unions and work force before any decision was taken.
I cannot give my hon. Friend any absolute assurance about the future of the royal naval aircraft workshop Almondbank. It would be wrong to constrain the scrutiny team in such a way. I know that uncertainty is unsettling, and have no wish to prolong it more than necessary. I am well aware of the valuable work carried out at Almondbank, but in the long term, it is in everyone's interest that all defence activities are reviewed from time to time, and that studies are carried through and assessed before any decisions are taken. The present position is that no proposal to close Almondbank has been put forward, let alone decided. No decision will be taken until the spring. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make this clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.